Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
This guide covers all aspects of pedestrian and bicycle planning. It is intended for policy makers, planners and advocates who want the best current information on ways to make their communities better places for walking and cycling. It provides basic information on various planning and design concepts, and offers extensive references to help implement them. It describes general nonmotorized planning practices, how to measure and predict nonmotorized travel, how to evaluate and prioritize projects, and how to implement various programs that support nonmotorized transportation. It covers planning for paths, sidewalks, bikelanes, street improvements, road and path maintenance, road safety, personal security, universal access (including features to accommodate people with disabilities), nonmotorized traffic law enforcement, education and encouragement programs, and integration with a communitys strategic plans and various other programs. There are also appendices that provide more detailed information on planning, design and evaluation. This is an ongoing project. We welcome your feedback.
Foreword Transport planning practices must change if they are to incorporate nonmotorized modes. While walking and cycling have long been recognized as important activities, mobility and access as measured in traditional planning practices focused on motor vehicle travel. There is increasing recognition that balanced transportation choices are important to individual travelers and society overall. This guide presents best practices for nonmotorized transport planning. Planning for nonmotorized travel can benefit your community in many ways. It can remove barriers to mobility and increase the safety and comfort of pedestrians and cyclists, broaden travel options for non-drivers, reduce conflicts between motorists and other road users, reduce automobile traffic and the problems it creates, increase recreational activity and exercise, encourage nonmotorized tourism, better accommodate people with disabilities, and help create more livable communities. Improved pedestrian and cycling conditions can benefit everybody in your community regardless of how much they use nonmotorized travel modes. This guide describes how to develop local pedestrian and bicycle plans. It discusses reasons that communities should develop such plans, provides specific instructions for developing your planning process and creating your plan, discusses how to integrate nonmotorized planning into other local planning activities, and provides an extensive list of pedestrian and bicycle planning resources. This guide describes how to use available resources most efficiently to improve walking and cycling conditions in your community. A pedestrian and cycling plan is not just a map showing paths and trails. It can address a variety of issues including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Coordination of nonmotorized transportation improvements with other community plans. Encouraging nonmotorized transport for transportation and recreation. Nonmotorized safety education programs. Traffic management and traffic calming. Improving enforcement of traffic laws related to nonmotorized travel. Pedestrian and bicycle facility planning and design.
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION: WHY PLAN FOR WALKING AND CYCLING...............................................5 II. TRANSPORT PLANNING OVERVIEW.............................................................................................7 PLANNING PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................7 SCOPING AND BACKGROUND RESEARCH.......................................................................................................9 MEASURING CURRENT NONMOTORIZED TRAVEL..........................................................................................10 PREDICTING POTENTIAL NONMOTORIZED TRAVEL.........................................................................................12 EVALUATING EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FACILITIES.....................................................................................13 IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES.........................................................................14 PRIORITIZE IMPROVEMENTS .....................................................................................................................16 BUDGETING AND EVALUATION..................................................................................................................17 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS OF NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORT................................................................20 III. NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.................................................................22 1. INTEGRATING WITH STATE OR PROVINCIAL PLANNING...............................................................................22 2. PLANNING MULTI-USE TRAILS.............................................................................................................22 DEALING WITH TRAIL CONFLICTS............................................................................................................24 FACILITY MAINTENANCE..........................................................................................................................24 SPOT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS................................................................................................................25 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NEEDS AT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS....................................................................26 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COORDINATORS.................................................................................................26 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED)...............................................................27 IV. PLANNING FOR PEDESTRIANS......................................................................................................29 TYPES OF PEDESTRIANS...........................................................................................................................30 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND PLANNING......................................................................................................31 PEDESTRIAN STANDARDS AND IMPROVEMENTS.............................................................................................32 4. UNIVERSAL DESIGN (INCLUDING ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES )....................................................35 5. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROGRAMS...........................................................................................................37 V. PLANNING FOR BICYCLISTS...........................................................................................................38 TYPES OF CYCLISTS...............................................................................................................................38 INTEGRATING CYCLING INTO ROADWAY PLANNING.......................................................................................38 BICYCLE NETWORK PLANNING..................................................................................................................38 ACCOMMODATING CYCLISTS ON RURAL ROADS...........................................................................................41 BICYCLE BOULEVARDS............................................................................................................................41 BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES...................................................................................................................42 INTEGRATING CYCLING AND TRANSIT.........................................................................................................44 ROADWAY MAINTENANCE FOR CYCLISTS....................................................................................................46 VI. SAFETY PROGRAMS.........................................................................................................................48 SAFETY EDUCATION...............................................................................................................................48 TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT...................................................................................................................49 VII. ENCOURAGEMENT AND PROMOTION.....................................................................................50 VIII. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TOOLS....................................................................52 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS .........................................................................................................................52 ROAD DESIGN, RECONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS.............................................................52 MUNICIPAL LAWS..................................................................................................................................53 MAJOR PROJECTS AND SITE PLAN AGREEMENTS..........................................................................................53 WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS ......................................................................54 LAND EXCHANGE, DEDICATION OF PARKLAND WITH PRIVATE DEVELOPER........................................................54
Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; Guide to Best Practices RURAL AREAS, UTILITY CORRIDORS , FIRE ROADS AND RAILS-TO-TRAIL OPPORTUNITIES ...................................54 IX. RELATED PLANNING ISSUES........................................................................................................55 SCHOOL TRIP MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................................55 2. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC CALMING.....................................................................................56 ROADWAY ACCESS MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................57 LIVABLE COMMUNITY PLANNING..............................................................................................................58 APPENDIX 1 MODEL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLAN...........................................................60 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................60 BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN......................................................................................................61 BICYCLING AND WALKING GOALS............................................................................................61 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES.........................................................................................................62 The Engineering Department Will:......................................................................................................63 The Parks and Recreation Department Will:......................................................................................64 Law Enforcement Agencies Will:.........................................................................................................64 Public Involvement...............................................................................................................................65 APPENDIX 2 QUICK FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES................................................................67 PEDESTRIAN PLANNING GUIDELINES...........................................................................................................67 BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES.....................................................................................................69 APPENDIX 3 EVALUATING NONMOTORIZED TRAVEL..............................................................72 Surveys..................................................................................................................................................72 Crash Data...........................................................................................................................................73 Field Surveys........................................................................................................................................73 Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Ratings...............................................................................74 The Barrier Effect................................................................................................................................75 Cycling Condition Evaluation Techniques..........................................................................................75 Pedestrian Condition Evaluation Techniques.....................................................................................76 Prioritizing Improvements and Selecting Preferred Options..............................................................79 APPENDIX 4 EXEMPLARY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANS..............................................83 BICYCLE PLANS.....................................................................................................................................83 PEDESTRIAN PLANS.................................................................................................................................84 APPENDIX 5 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANNING RESOURCES......................................85 ROADWAY DESIGN RESOURCES.................................................................................................................85 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLANNING .......................................................................................................85 PEDESTRIAN PLANNING PUBLICATIONS........................................................................................................86 BICYCLE PLANNING PUBLICATIONS............................................................................................................87 USEFUL ORGANIZATIONS.........................................................................................................................87
There are many reasons to plan for nonmotorized transportation. Walking, cycling, jogging and skating1 are increasingly popular for transport and recreation. Safe and convenient nonmotorized travel provides a many benefits, including reduced traffic congestion, user savings, road and parking facility savings, economic development and a better environment. This section presents a brief overview of the importance of considering nonmotorized transport in transport plans. The ultimate goal of transportation is to provide access to goods, services and activities. In general, the more transportation options available, the better the access. Nonmotorized modes are important transport choices, for trips made entirely by walking or cycling, and to support public transport. In urban areas, walking and cycling are often the fastest and most efficient way to perform short trips. A built environment that is hostile to non-motorized transport reduces everybodys travel choices. The result of this automobile dependency is increased traffic congestion, higher road and parking facility costs, increased consumer costs, and greater environmental degradation. Adequate pedestrian and cycling conditions are essential to guarantee everybody a minimal level of mobility (basic mobility). As stated in one of the primary roadway design guides, Pedestrians are a part of every roadway environment, and attention must be paid to their presence in rural as well as urban areasBecause of the demands of vehicular traffic in congested urban areas, it is often extremely difficult to make adequate provisions for pedestrians. Yet this must be done, because pedestrians are the lifeblood of our urban areas, especially in the downtown and other retail areas. In general, the most successful shopping sections are those that provide the most comfort and pleasure for pedestrians.2 Walking, cycling and skating are enjoyable and healthy activities. They are among the most popular forms of recreation. Public health officials increasingly recognize the importance of frequent aerobic exercise.3 According to a government report, Regular walking and cycling are the only realistic way that the population as a whole can get the daily half hour of moderate exercise which is the minimum level needed to keep reasonably fit.4 Nonmotorized travel can contribute to the local economy by supporting tourism and quality development. Pedestrian-friendly conditions improve the commercial and cultural vibrancy of communities. Increased pedestrian traffic helps create a safer and more pleasant environment. Once visitors arrive in a community they often explore it by walking, cycling and skating. A good walking environment can enhance visitors experience. Some trail networks are destination tourist attractions, bringing hundreds or thousands of visitors, and thousands or millions of dollars annually to a community. When your community implements pedestrian and cycling improvements, it is important to do it correctly. Excellent planning resources are now available to help plan, evaluate, construct and maintain nonmotorized facilities. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, and no excuse for
1
J. Scott Osberg, Stephanie Faul, Joshua Poole, and John McHenry, Skating: An Emerging Mode of Transportation. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 2000. 2 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1994, p. 97. 3 Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General, Center for Disease Control (www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr), 1996. 4 Physical Activity Task Force, More People, More Active, More Often, UK Department of Health (London), 1995, cited in Judith Hanna, Transport and Health: Fit to Get About Urban Transport International, No. 4, March/April 1996, p. 11.
employing inadequate or outdated methods. Good planning is far cheaper than correcting mistakes later. Many communities have provided relatively little support to nonmotorized travel. As described later in this guide, methods commonly used to evaluate roadway projects tend to favor motorized travel and overlook the benefits of improved nonmotorized access, so pedestrian and cycling programs tend to be underfunded. As a result, many areas have inadequate sidewalks and crosswalks, roads are not designed or maintained to accommodate cycling, and opportunities for pedestrian and cycling facilities and connections are overlooked. Virtually all communities that have increased nonmotorized transport have achieved this by improvements to their walking and cycling environment. Walking and cycling facilities can pay for themselves through road and parking facility savings. For example, a bicycle improvement that shifts 100 trips a day from driving to bicycling can provide as much as $1 million in parking and roadway cost savings over its lifetime. Few improvements will be implemented without a plan. Good planning can reduce the cost of improvements by allowing, for example, nonmotorized improvements to be incorporated into scheduled road projects. Funding is often available for nonmotorized projects and programs. Obtaining this support requires that a community have a plan that identifies and prioritizes projects and programs. It is therefore important for local governments to develop plans to be ready for opportunities that may arise. Planning Tip Summary of Nonmotorized Transportation Benefits5 Personal Benefits Mobility, particularly important for non-drivers (including children and the elderly). Financial savings. Exercise, leading to increased health and well being (reduced heart disease, stroke, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, colon cancer, osteoporosis, stress, and depression). Increased social interaction, opportunities to meet neighbors. Enjoyment. Community Benefits of Substituting Walking and Cycling for Short Car Trips Reduced traffic congestion. Road and parking facility savings. Reduced motor vehicle air, water, and noise pollution. Improved public health. More livable communities. Increased community interaction, which can result in safer streets. Increased appeal and access for tourists. More efficient land use (reduced sprawl), by encouraging infill development.
Todd Litman, Quantifying the Benefits of Nonmotorized Transport, VTPI (www.vtpi.org), 1999.
An effective planning process involves various stakeholders, including staff from other related agencies, potential users, and other groups who may be impacted by the plan. This process can provide long-term benefits and support the plans implementation by educating officials and community members about pedestrian and cycling issues, establishing communication between technical staff and users, addressing potential conflicts, and creating an on-going framework for pedestrian and cycling planning. Below is a list of typical steps in a planning process. Typical steps in a planning process: 1. Establish problem statement.* 2. Scoping and background research. 3. Develop planning process. 4. Establish vision, goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria.* 5. Identify constraints and opportunities.* 6. Prioritize projects and programs.* 7. Develop implementation plan and budget. 8. Program evaluation. 9. Update and modify plan as needed.*
* Requires public involvement
Coordination With Other Planning Activities Nonmotorized planning requires coordination among various municipal and regional planning activities. Table 1 shows some of these relationships. When developing a planning process, other appropriate agencies should be consulted. For example, transportation agencies should be contacted early in the planning process, invited to participate in technical committees, consulted concerning issues that affect provincial highways, and have a chance to review draft plans. In general, pedestrian improvements are planned at the neighborhood level, since that is the scale of most walking trips. Pedestrian improvements tend to be centered around focal points such as schools, residential, commercial, and high-density areas. Because cyclists travel farther, bicycle planning requires more coordination between jurisdictions to create an effective regional bicycle network. Grants may be available to fund some local planning activities and special projects.
Table 1
Type of Planning
Community strategic, comprehensive, and sustainability planning. Regional and local transportation Neighborhood plans Municipal and zoning bylaws Street and new subdivision design standards Land preservation Traffic enforcement Economic development Parks Schools
This table illustrates examples of other community planning activities that could be coordinated with pedestrian and bicycle planning.
Public Involvement Public involvement is an important component of nonmotorized planning. It broadens the scope of concerns, solutions, and perspectives to be considered in the plan, and can help identify potential problems early in the process. It can also help gain support for the plans implementation. Public Involvement Techniques6 Advisory committee Audio-visual presentation Discussion paper News release, brochure and mail-out Open house (public information drop-in) Public meeting Site tour Small group meeting Survey and questionnaire Public workshop
Resources Planning and Public Involvement Desmond Connor, Constructive Citizen Participation: A Resource Book, Connor Development Services (www.connor.bc.ca/connor), 1997, 232 pages. Innovations in Public Involvement for Transportation Planning, Federal Highway Administration, (Washington DC), 1994.
Manual of Socioeconomic Procedures, BC Ministry of Transportation and Highways (Victoria), 1994, Chapter 10.
Some nonmotorized travel data may be available from existing travel surveys and traffic counts.8 However, most travel surveys and traffic counts under-record nonmotorized trips. Many exclude walking trips altogether, and they often undercount short trips, non-work trips, travel by children, and recreational trips. Automatic traffic counters may not record nonmotorized travelers, and manual counters are usually located on arterial streets that are less heavily used by cyclists than adjacent lower traffic streets. In fact, most trips involve nonmotorized links. For example, trips classified as auto or transit trips are often actually walk-auto-walk, or bike-bus-walk trips, yet the nonmotorized components are often ignored, even if they occur on public roads. One study finds that the actual number of nonmotorized trips is six times greater than what conventional surveys indicate.9 In 2000, the Southern California Metropolitan Transportation Authority increased the portion of nonmotorized travel in their models from about 2% of regional trips (based on conventional travel surveys) up to about 10% (based on more comprehensive travel data from the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey). Information on current walking and cycling travel can be gathered using: 1. A general travel survey designed to elicit sufficient responses concerning nonmotorized travel. For example, travel should be clearly defined to include walking and bicycling trips. Short, non-work and recreational trips, and trips by children should be counted. 2. A special survey targeting cyclists and pedestrians (such as survey forms distributed through bicycle shops, sport clubs, recreation centres, colleges, and schools). 3. A survey handed out to cyclists and pedestrians as they travel along a street or path. 4. Traffic counts that gather information on pedestrian and bicycle travel. These can include photoelectric counters installed on trails, electronic counters installed on cycle paths and bike lanes, and manual counts. Volunteers from pedestrian and cycling organizations may also be mobilized to perform manual counts for nonmotorized travel. Pedestrian and bicycle travel surveys should attempt to gather the following information: Who Demographic information such as age, gender, residence location, employment status, and income. Where Origin and destination of trips, including links by other modes (such as transit). When Time, day of the week, day of the year, and conditions, such as weather, road conditions, and traffic conditions. Why Purpose of trip. What factors affected travel choice (for example, would a cyclist have chosen another route or mode if road conditions or facilities were different).
7 8
See Appendix 3 for more information on evaluation techniques. BTS, Bicycle and Pedestrian Data: Sources, Needs & Gaps, USDOT (www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/bikeped/report.pdf), 2000 9 Piet Rietveld, Nonmotorized Modes in Transport Systems: A Multimodal Chain Perspective for The Netherlands, Transportation Research D, Vo. 5, No. 1, Jan. 2000, pp. 31-36.
10
Example
Nonmotorized Transport Survey Questions10 1. Are your neighbourhoods designed to promote walking and cycling to get to school, work, recreation, transit, and retail outlets? Are these facilities used? 2. If these facilities are not used, what improvements might be made to make them more accessible? 3. Is street lighting adequate? 4. Are sidewalks maintained, repaired, and cleared of snow in the winter? 5. Are bike lanes part of the roads? 6. Does your community master plan include facilities for cycling and walking? 7. Are there cycling organizations in your community promoting the use of bicycles? 8. Are there bicycle racks at transit stations and outside municipal facilities? 9. Do school organizations promote walking, cycling, and safety programs for both? 10. Do schools and workplaces provide secure bicycle parking? 11. Are local government officials aware of the walking and cycling needs of neighbourhoods? 12. What measures could be taken to calm traffic in your residential neighbourhoods? 13. Can community groups be encouraged to organize bicycle safety workshops? 14. Do local businesses support walking and cycling to their stores? 15. What groups might be involved in forming partnerships to promote active transportation in your community? 16. Are residents in your community encouraged to keep sidewalks clear of snow for those who want to walk? 17. Is there bicycle parking near shopping areas and other destinations?
Pedestrian and bicycle collision data can help identify barriers and hazards to nonmotorized travel. Locations with frequent pedestrian or cycling crashes indicate some combination of high risk or heavy use, both of which can justify facility improvements. Pedestrian and cycling collisions tend to be underreported, so a variety of data collection methods may be needed.11 If possible, travel data should be recorded in a format that can be Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coded. Since nonmotorized trips tend to be short, fine-grained mapping is important. Most traffic models use zones that are too large to capture such trips and maps that are too large to illustrate all pedestrian and cycling facilities. However, conventional traffic models can be modified to predict nonmotorized travel.12
10 11
Developing Communities for Active Transportation, Go For Green (www.goforgreen.ca), 1998. Helen James, Under-reporting of Road Traffic Collisions, Traffic Eng+Con, Dec. 1991, pp. 574-583. 12 Ronald Eash, Destination and Mode Choice Models for Nonmotorized Travel, Transportation Research Record 1674, 1999, pp. 1-8.
11
Computer modeling improvements allow better prediction of how planning decisions are likely to affect nonmotorized travel.14 However, these are currently in the development stage and may not be cost effective for application in every community during the foreseeable future.
Table 2
Favorable Demographics
13
W.L. Schwartz, et al., Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Nonmotorized Travel: Overview of Methods, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, FHWA (www.tfhrc.gov), 1999. 14 Cambridge Systematics and Bicycle Federation of America, Guidebook on Methods to Estimate NonMotorized Travel, FHWA, Publication No. FHWA-RD-98-166 (available at www.tfhrc.gov), 1999; PBQD, Data Collection and Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of MicroScale Design, Transportation Model Improvement Program, USDOT (www.bts.gov/tmip), 2000.
12
Compatible Land Use Reasonable Trip Distances and Times Supportive Social Environment Functional Infrastructure Suitable Traffic Conditions
Medium to high population density Mixed land uses. Presence of cycling generators (e.g. university) Jobs/schools within 30 minutes by walking or cycling. Shopping/services within 10-15 minutes by walking/cycling. Most destinations within 10 km. Perception of safety. Presence of people activity. Employer support/tolerance of cycle commuting. Basic road system adequate for cycling. No major barriers. Reasonable topography. Speeds/volumes reasonable. Lack of heavy commercial traffic.
Many communities have significant latent demand for nonmotorized travel. That is, people would walk and bicycle more frequently if they had suitable facilities and resources.15 A U.S. survey found that 17% of adults claim they would sometimes bicycle commute if secure storage and changing facilities were available, 18% would if employers offered financial incentives, and 20% would if they had safer cycling facilities.16 Table 3 summarizes a recent Canadian public survey indicating high levels of interest in cycling and walking. Table 3 Active Transportation Survey Findings17 Cycle
Currently use this mode for leisure and recreation. Currently use this mode for transportation. Would like to use this mode more frequently. Would cycle to work if there were a dedicated bike lane which would take me to my workplace in less than 30 minutes at a comfortable pace. Support for additional government spending on bicycling facilities. 48% 24% 66% 70% 82%
Walk
85% 58% 80%
Appropriate facilities and roadway improvements for walking and cycling (sidewalks, crosswalks, multi-use paths, bike lanes, traffic calming) can increase nonmotorized travel. One study found that each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents increases bicycle commuting 0.075 percent, all else being equal.18
19
Some transportation agencies use volunteers or hired college students to perform field surveys of pedestrian and cycling conditions. If possible, surveys should include special user groups, such as people in wheelchairs and elderly pedestrians, particularly in areas they frequent. When evaluating facilities it is important to clearly maintain the distinction between nominal (in name) and functional (working condition) dimensions. For example, many sidewalks and paths are nominally 1.8 to 2 metres wide, but functionally they may be much narrower, due to
15
Charles Komanoff and Cora Roelofs, The Environmental Benefits of Bicycling and Walking, National Bicycling and Walking Study Case Study No. 15, USDOT, January 1993, FHWA-PD-93-015. 16 A Trend On the Move: Commuting by Bicycle. Bicycling Magazine, Rodale Press, April 1991. 17 Environics, National Survey on Active Transportation, Go for Green, (www.goforgreen.ca), 1998. 18 Arthur Nelson and David Allen, If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them; Cross-Sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities, Transportation Research Record 1578, 1997, pp. 79-83. 19 See Appendix 3 for more information on evaluation techniques.
13
objects such as telephone poles and signposts located in their right of way, and due to surface failures, such as cracks and potholes. As a result, a walkway that meets technical specifications may be inadequate for some potential users. Similarly, a bike lane may be useless if it has poor surface conditions or is frequently used for vehicle parking.
Example
Field Survey Data to Collect Vehicle traffic volumes and speeds. Nonmotorized traffic volumes and speeds. Special hazards to walking and cycling. Sidewalk, path, and trail conditions (effective width, surface condition, sight distances, etc.). Curb cuts, ramps and other universal access facilities. Pedestrian road crossing facilities. Lighting along streets and paths. Roadway and road shoulder widths and pavement conditions. Presence of parked cars adjacent to the traffic lane. Presence of potholes and dangerous drain grates. Bicycle parking facilities. Security, cleanliness, vandalism, litter, and aesthetic conditions. Public washrooms and other services along trails and bike routes.
It may be difficult to obtain consistent evaluations of roadway conditions by different surveyors. Some cyclists are comfortable riding on roads with heavy, high-speed traffic, and are critical of paths that restrict cycling riding speed due to design limitations. Other cyclists have the opposite preferences. This problem can be minimized by establishing clear evaluation criteria. For example, rather than simply rating a highway condition as good or bad for cycling it may be better to record traffic volumes, shoulder width, shoulder condition, and special problems for cyclists. Training and supervision can help guarantee consistency between survey teams.
20
Non-existent, incomplete, and poor quality sidewalks and crosswalks. Roads and bridges with heavy vehicle traffic and inadequate lane space for cyclists. Highways and other roadways with rough pavement, potholes, drain grates, or other surface irregularities along the right lane and shoulder. Wide roads and intersections that are difficult for pedestrians to cross. Rough railroad tracks crossing a roadway (particularly if at an angle).
John Williams, Bruce Burgess, Peter Moe and Bill Wilkinson, Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, FHWA, Report FHWA-RD-98-105, 1998.
14
Inadequate lane space for bicycles. A lack of bicycle and pedestrian connections where it would be suitable, such as between a residential area and a school or shopping mall. Street environments that are perceived as unsafe to pedestrians, either due to crash risk or crime. Signal lights that are not activated by bicycles.
When evaluating constraints and potential improvements, consult current users (to identify the problems they encounter), potential users (to identify the problems they perceive), and experts (who may be able to provide technical information and suggestions). It is important to differentiate between nominal (in name) and functional (working condition) when evaluating facilities. For example, typical sidewalks and paths are nominally 1.8 to 2 metres wide, which is sufficient for light- and medium volume pedestrian traffic, but functionally they may be much narrower due to objects such as telephone poles and signposts located in their right of way, and surface failures, such as cracks and potholes. As a result, a walkway that meets technical specifications may be inadequate for some potential users. Similarly, a bike lane may be useless if it has poor surface conditions or is frequently used for vehicle parking. Design Concept Shy Distance Although a typical pedestrian or cyclist is only about 0.5 metres (1.5 feet) wide, when moving they need a buffer between themselves and other objects. Traffic engineers call this shy distance. As traffic speeds increase, so do shy distance requirements. This should be taken into account when evaluating the adequacy of sidewalks and paths for the volumes and mixes of users. It means, for example, that two people walking quickly side-by-side typically require about 2 metres of total width (0.5 metres of body width each, plus 0.5 metres of shy distance on each side, and that a 3 metre sidewalk or path is just sufficient to comfortably accommodate a couple of pedestrians heading in one direction passing another pedestrian. Wider paths are needed to accommodate moderate speed skaters and cyclists. Not all pedestrian and cycling improvements require a specific project or funding. Many improvements can be implemented by incorporating appropriate policies and standards into other projects. Implementation tasks may include: Adopting appropriate road, path and sidewalk design and maintenance standards. Changing development and zoning codes to require pedestrian and bicycle facilities in new developments and when old ones are reconstructed. Establishing nonmotorized transportation safety, law enforcement, and promotion programs. Establishing a pedestrian and bicycle coordinator position within a planning agency. Establishing nonmotorized transportation evaluation programs, including data gathering and ongoing public surveys, and consultation.
15
Prioritize Improvements
21
Prioritization means identifying potential projects and ranking them from most to least desirable. There are four factors to consider when prioritizing improvements: Level of demand. How many people would use a facility if it were improved. In general, this increases around higher density areas, such as business districts and higher-density residential areas, and around attractions, such as schools and parks. Degree of barrier. This can range from minor (pedestrians must take a less direct route than desirable) to a total barrier (you cant get there from here by walking or bicycling). This is sometimes measured using Level-of-Service ratings of walking and cycling conditions.22 Potential benefits. This refers to the benefits that could result from increased walking and cycling on that corridor. For example, improvements that encourage more nonmotorized commuting may be considered to have more value to a community than improvements that are used primarily for recreational cycling and walking. Cost and ease of improvement. This includes the incremental financial costs of the project, and any increase in future maintenance costs.
This information can be presented in an evaluation matrix, such as the one below. Note that cost is inverted into affordability so all criteria can be ranked from high (best) to low.
Table 4
Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3 Proposal 4
Barrier Reduction
High Low Medium High
Benefit
Medium High High Medium
It may be desirable to develop a more quantitative evaluation process. Each criterion can be assigned points from zero (worst) to 5 (best). These are then added to create total points for each project. More sophisticated strategies for prioritizing pedestrian and bicycling improvements are described in Appendix 3. Rankings can be done by a small group of technical experts, a technical/public committee, or through a public survey. This exercise should result in a list of projects ranked from highest to lowest priority.
Table 5
Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3 Proposal 4
Barrier Reduction
4 3 3 4
Social Benefit
3 5 4 3
Total Points
16 15 13 10
21 22
See Appendix 3 for more information on evaluation techniques. Linda Dixon, Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems, Transportation Research Record 1538, 1996, pp. 1-9.
16
23
Once projects are prioritized, the next step is to develop an implementation plan and budget proposal. The implementation plan should identify the order of tasks needed to implement each project, and who is responsible for that task. It should identify projects that are contingent on other activities, such as a path that would be built as part of a larger development, or a sidewalk that would be added when a particular road improvement project is implemented. The proposed budget can be based on an annual estimated expenditure, such as $100,000, or 5% of the transportation budget, or it can be based on a goal to implement all priority projects within a certain time frame, such as 10 years. Some project may require special grants. Local jurisdictions can often apply for regional, state, provincial, or federal funds to implement pedestrian and bicycle projects. It is important to become familiar with appropriate grant programs, and maintain project proposals that are ready for submission. Contact your Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO, for information visit www.ampo.org) or state/provincial transportation agency for more information. Dont forget to budget for maintenance. Preventive maintenance reduces hazards and future repair costs. Use life cycle cost analysis to evaluate expenditures, such as the net value of using a higher quality, longer-lasting material. A good rule of thumb is that 5% of infrastructure replacement costs should be spent on annual maintenance. For example, if a bridge costs $100,000 to construct, $5,000 should be budgeted for its maintenance each year.
23
17
Planning Tip How much funding should be devoted to walking and bicycling facilities24 Many people assume that motorist pay for roads through fuel taxes so it is unfair to devote road resources to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It is sometimes suggested that cyclists should be charged a special license fee to fund their facilities. However, the local roads that are used most by pedestrians and cyclists are actually funded by local taxes that everybody pays regardless of how they travel. Since nonmotorized travel costs less to accommodate and motorists tend to travel far more kilometres per year than non-motorists, households that drive less than average tend to pay more taxes than the roadway costs they impose, while those that drive more than average tend to underpay their roadway costs. It could be argued that, at a minimum, pedestrian and cycling programs should receive funding comparable to their portion of travel. For example, if 5% of trips on local streets are made by pedestrians and another 5% are made by bicycle, it would be fair to devote at least 10% of local transportation expenditures to nonmotorized transport. (As discussed later, most transportation surveys underestimate nonmotorized travel by ignoring or undercounting short tips, non-work trips, travel by children, and access links to motor vehicles.) However, there are reasons that communities may justify devoting even more resources to nonmotorized transportation: Nonmotorized transport programs have historically been underfunded so there are unmet needs. Nonmotorized transport help meets community livability, equity, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) objectives. Nonmotorized transport serves both transportation and recreation purposes, so it deserves funding from two municipal budget categories: transport budgets for transportation-oriented facilities such as sidewalks, wider curb lanes and bike lanes, and recreation budgets for recreation-oriented facilities such as trails.
If possible, a minimum annual municipal budget allocation should be established. Additional funding may also be available from other sources, such as regional transportation budgets, the provincial Cycling Network Plan, and federal environmental or infrastructure funds. Budgets and implementation programs should be flexible to allow for changing needs and opportunities. For example, scheduled maintenance or repairs on a particular roadway could allow pedestrian and cycling improvements to be included at minimal extra cost. In such a situation it may be sensible to change the plans priorities to take advantage of such an opportunity. It is important to consider early in the planning process how projects will be evaluated. This determines what data that should be collected before changes are implemented to allow beforeand-after analysis. Project evaluation can help to assess whether program goals and objectives are appropriate, whether they are being met, whether a project is cost effective, and whether priorities, criteria and design factors should be changed.
24
Todd Litman, Whose Roads? Defining Bicyclists and Pedestrians Right to Use Public Roadways, VTPI (www.vtpi.org), 1998.
18
World Health Organization Charter on Transport, Environment and Health www.who.dk/London99/transport02e.htm Physical Activity Lack of physical activity is one of the major risk factors for coronary heart disease, which is the leading cause of mortality in Europe. On the other hand, walking and cycling as daily activities can promote health by providing physical activity, decreasing noise, and air pollution. The health benefits of regular physical activity can be summarized as: 50% reduction in the risk of developing coronary heart diseases (i.e. a similar effect to not smoking). 50% reduction in the risk of developing adult diabetes. 50% reduction in the risk of becoming obese. 30% reduction in the risk of developing hypertension. 10/8 mm Hg decline in blood pressure in hypertensive subjects (i.e. a similar effect to that obtained from antihypertensive drugs). Other effects include reduced osteoporosis, relief of symptoms of depression and anxiety, and the prevention of falls in the elderly.
A total of 30 minutes brisk walking or cycling on most days of the week, even if carried out in 1015 minute episodes, is effective in providing these health benefits. The average trip by walking in Europe is about 1.5 km and the average cycling trip is about 3.5 km, each taking about 15 minutes to make: two such trips each day would be enough to provide the recommended daily dose of physical activity. Psychosocial effects Certain patterns of transport have a broad range of effects on mental health, including risk-taking and aggressive behaviors, depression, and post-traumatic psychological effects of crashes. High levels of traffic can cause social isolation and limit interpersonal networks of support, factors which have been found to be associated with higher mortality and morbidity in the elderly. Children who have the opportunity of playing unhindered by street traffic and without the presence of adults have been found to have twice as many social contacts with playmates in the immediate neighbourhood as those who could not leave their residence unaccompanied by adults due to heavy traffic. The fear of collisions is reported by parents as being the main reason for taking children to school by car. This hinders the development of childrens independence and reduces their opportunities for social contact. It also has an influence on childrens attitudes towards car use and personal mobility in adulthood. The lack of physical activity, including walking and cycling, is associated with mental ill health, including depression.
19
This table shows economic impacts of consumer expenditures in Texas. Community Amenities Nonmotorized facilities such as public trails can stimulate tourist activity, increase property values, and help attract certain types of industries, particularly knowledge-based businesses with employees who place a high value on amenities such as environmental quality, access to greenspace, and outdoor recreation.28 Local Business Activity Some commercial districts find that nonmotorized transport increases business activity. Nonmotorized transport land requirements for roads and parking, and commercial destinations can be located in closer proximity to one another. This allows for both greater site flexibility and efficiency, and generates financial savings from reduced parking requirements. A study in Bern, Switzerland found that cyclists spend far more money per area of commercial parking than motorists. Only 25% of motorists buy more than 2 bags of shopping - a quantity easily shipped by bike or on foot, while 17% of cyclists also buy 'car sized' loads and take it home.29 Cost Effective mobility The majority of packages delivered weigh less than 30Kkg, loads easily transported on foot or by
25
Jeroen Buis, The Economic Significance of Cycling; A Study to Illustrate the Costs and Benefits of Cycling Policy, VNG uitgeverij (The Haag; www.vnguitgeverij.nl) and I-ce (www.cycling.nl), 2000. 26 Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, Sustainability and Cities; Overcoming Automobile Dependency, Island Press (Covelo; www.islandpress.org), 1998; Todd Litman and Felix Laube, Automobile Dependency and Economic Development, VTPI, (www.vtpi.org), 1998. 27 Jon Miller, Henry Robison & Michael Lahr, Estimating Important Transportation-Related Regional Economic Relationships in Bexar County, Texas, VIA Transit (San Antonio; www.viainfo.net), 1999. 28 Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway Corridors, U.S. National Park Service (www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/econ_index.htm), 1995; Economic and Social Benefits of Off-Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, Technical Brief, Nat. Bicycle & Pedestrian Clearinghouse, (www.bikefed.org), 1995; Evaluation of the Burke-Gilman Trails Effect on Property Values and Crime, Transportation Research Record 1168, 1988, pp. 57-59. 29 Cycling The Way Ahead For Towns And Cities, European Community, 1999, ISBN 92-828-5724-7 EC no CR-17-98-693-EN-C, Free from DG XI Fax: +32 2 299 0307.
20
bicycle. Nonmotorized deliveries are often faster than by automobile, and are far cheaper in terms of operating, facility (roads and parking) and congestion costs. Surveys indicate that only about 25% of shoppers actually carry away a load that would be difficult to manage on foot or bike. Police and some emergency response personnel find that they can perform more effectively by bicycle rather than car. They are swift, quiet and approachable, and can reach more destinations that motor vehicles. Bicycle parking is far cheaper than automobile parking, and can often be incorporated into currently unused spaces. Employees who bicycle to work reduce parking costs and leave more parking available for customers. Resources Economic Development Impacts of Nonmotorized Transport Cycling The Way Ahead For Towns And Cities, DG XI - Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, European Community, 1999, ISBN 92-828-5724-7 EC no CR-17-98-693-EN-C, Free from DG XI Fax: +32 2 299 0307. Todd Litman and Felix Laube, Automobile Dependency and Economic Development, VTPI (www.vtpi.org), 1999. Todd Litman, First Resort; Resort Community TDM, VTPI (www.vtpi.org), 1999.
21
III.
Pedestrians and cyclists have both similarities and differences that must be considered in planning, as illustrated below. This section of the guide examines combined planning issues, particularly the development of multi-use trails. Later there are separate sections on pedestrian planning and bicycling planning which address their unique features. Comparing Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Similarities
Tend to be slower than motor vehicle traffic. Vulnerable to weather, traffic volumes and speeds, pollution. Are unlicensed. Include wide range of ages and abilities (may include people with special needs).
Differences
Bicyclists can travel much faster and farther than pedestrians. Pedestrians are the slowest mode, can change directions quickly, and frequently stop. Bicyclists can ride on roadway and follow vehicle traffic rules. Pedestrians require separated facilities.
22
Resources Planning Trails and Other Nonmotorized Facilities Alta, Best Practices Analysis in Rails-With-Trails, Alta Transport Consulting (www.altaplanning.com), 2001. American Trails (www.outdoorlink.com/amtrails) fosters communication among trail users. AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Washington DC; 888-227-4860; www.aashto.org), 1999; available online at www.bikefed.org. David Engwicht, Street Reclaiming; Creating Livable Streets and Vibrant Communities, New Society Publishers (www.newsociety.com), 1999. Greenways: A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development, 1993. The Conservation Fund. Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300; Washington, DC 20009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), FHWA (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov) Part IX: Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities provides facility sign and marking standards. BTS, Bicycle and Pedestrian Data: Sources, Needs & Gaps, USDOT (www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/bikeped/report.pdf), 2000. National Bicycle and Walking Study (24 volumes), FHWA, (www.bikefed.org), 1991-95. NHI, Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Accommodation; Participant Workbook, National Highway Institute Course #38061, FHWA, 1996, information at www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk. Northwestern University Traffic Institute (Evanston, Illinois; 800-323-4011; www.nwu.edu/traffic) offers professional bicycle planning and facility design workshops. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk) is an example of nonmotorized planning at its best. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (1-877-WALKBIKE; www.bicyclinginfo.org) provides a variety of technical information on nonmotorized transport planning and programs. Suzan Anderson Pinsof and Terri Musser, Bicycle Facility Planning, Planners Advisory Service, American Planning Association (Chicago; 312-786-6344), 1995. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, (202-331-9696; www.railtrails.org) provides many resources, including Improving Conditions for Bicycling and Walking; A Best Practices Report. TAC, Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines, Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa; 613736-1350; www.tac-atc.ca), 1999. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.gov), Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning. Rails-To-Trails Conservancy (www.railtrails.org) is an organization dedicated to helping communities develop public trails. It provides a variety of information and resources. SWOV, Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking, Denmark Ministry of Transport (vd@vd.dk), European Commission Directorate General of Transport, 1998. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (www.hsrc.unc.edu). The WSDOT Pedestrian website (www.wsdot.wa.gov) provides information about Washington States outstanding pedestrian and bicycle planning programs.
23
Tip Trail Etiquette31 The key word is multi-use. Share the trail. Keep right except to pass. Motorized vehicles are prohibited (except for motorized wheelchairs). Respect private property adjacent to the trail. If youre on foot or on wheels, pass horseback riders with caution horses can spook at startling noises or motions. If youre on horseback, let other trail user know when your horse is safe to pass. If youre cycling, yield to pedestrians, control your speed, and warn call out or use a bell other trail users before passing. If youre walking your dog, keep it under control or on a leash, please pick up its droppings.
Facility Maintenance
It is not enough to simply build new facilities. A nonmotorized facility plan should include maintenance policies. It should identify the agencies responsible for maintaining facilities, the maintenance standards that are to be applied, how users should report maintenance needs, and special activities such as snow clearing and litter cleanup. Maintenance inspections should be performed routinely in conjunction with a Spot Improvement Program (discussed in more detail in the next section).
30
Roger L. Moore, Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails: Synthesis of the Literature and State of the Practice, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-PD-94-031 (www.bikefed.org), 1994. 31 Jim Mulchinoch, The Official Guide: The Galloping Goose Regional Trail, Capital District Regional Parks (Victoria; www.crd.bc.ca/parks/pdf/galgoos2.pdf), 1996.
24
Establish a maintenance policy and plan Establish written procedures that specify maintenance standards, schedule, quality control, and follow-up that will be used for pedestrian facilities, based on current best practices. Repairs Inspect trails and paths regularly for surface irregularities, such as potholes and cracks, and damage to signage and lighting. Repair potentially hazardous conditions quickly. Establish a citizen reporting system Encourage citizens to report pedestrian and bicycle facility maintenance needs or other problems. Publicize a particular telephone number and email address for submitting information. Sweeping - Establish a seasonal sweeping schedule. In curbed areas sweepings should be picked up, on open shoulders, debris can be swept onto gravel shoulders. In the fall, provide extra sweepings to pick up fallen leaves. Vegetation Vegetation may impede sight lines, or roots may break up the travel surface. Vegetation should be cut back to ensure adequate sight lines, and intrusive tree roots may be cut back to keep the walkway surface smooth and level. Drainage Malfunctioning drainage systems may cause accumulations of water at pedestrian crossings. Snow Removal Snow and ice can make pedestrian travel slow and hazardous. Snow should be removed from sidewalks to ensure safe passage of pedestrian facilities. Street Markings bike lane and crosswalk markings may become difficult to see over time. These should be inspected regularly and retraced when necessary. Utility Cuts Poorly performed sidewalk cuts for utilities may leave an interrupted surface for pedestrians. Cuts in sidewalk should be back filled with concrete to the sidewalk grade so the result is as smooth as a new sidewalk.
Roadway Maintenance Requirements What may be an adequate pavement surface for automobiles (with four wide, low-pressure tires) can be hazardous for cyclists (two, high-pressure tires). Small rocks, branches, and other debris can deflect a wheel, minor ridges in the pavement can cause spills, and potholes can cause wheel rims to bend. Wet leaves are slippery and cause cyclists to fall. Gravel blown off the travel land by traffic accumulates in the area where bicyclists ride. Broken glass can easily puncture tires.
32
Maintenance of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, NBPC Technical Assistance #6 (wsdot.wa.gov/hlrd/PDF/MaintBicPedArticle.pdf), 1995; E. Gallagher and V. Scott, Taking Steps; Modifying Pedestrian Environments to Reduce the Risk of Missteps and Falls, STEPS Project, School of Nursing, University of Victoria (Victoria), 1996.
25
On highways, enough space should be left at the edge of the construction site to allow a vehicle to pass a cyclist. Barricades and pylons can be used to create a temporary passageway for pedestrians. This is particularly important in urban areas. Sidewalk closures should be avoided or minimized as much as possible. Passageway should be wide enough to accommodate a wheel chair, and should have ramps where there are height changes. In urban areas, bicyclists may share the lane with lower speed traffic, or a temporary bike lane may be installed. Avoid routing bicycles onto sidewalks or onto unpaved shoulders. Construction signs should not obstruct bicycle and pedestrian paths. Where this is unavoidable, do not block more than half the path or sidewalk. Bus stops must remain accessible to pedestrians. Where necessary, bus stops may be relocated provided clear and noticeable signs are provided. Additional lighting may be required at night to identify hazards.
33
Gerald Donaldson, Work Zone Pedestrian Safety, in Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities: A Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE (www.ite.org), 1998.
26
34
Tom McKay, The Right Design for Reducing Crime; Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Security Management Magazine (www.peelpolice.on.ca/cpbook.html), March 1996.
27
Resources Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Canadian National Crime Prevention Centre (www.crime-prevention.org) Crime Prevention From the Ground Up, National Council for the Prevention of Crime (www.ncpc.org/2add4dc.htm). Design and Crime Program, Nottingham Trent University (www.ntu.ac.uk/soc/psych/miller/crime.htm). Social Research Associates, Personal Security Issues in Pedestrian Journeys, UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (London; www.mobility-unit.detr.gov.uk/psi), 1999. Tom McKay, The Right Design for Reducing Crime; Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Security Management Magazine (www.peelpolice.on.ca/cpbook.html), March 1996. Wekerle and Whitzman, Safe Cities: Guidelines for Planning, Design and Management, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995. WAC, Safety Audit Guide, Womens Action Centre Against Violence (Ottawa, 613-241-5414; wacav@istar.ca; http://geocities.com/herzing3), 1996. $25 Canadian. What is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design? Alberta Community Crime Prevention Association, University of Alberta (www.ualberta.ca/ACCPA/cpted.htm).
28
35
Pedestrian Master Plan, Pedestrian Transportation Program, City of Portland (503-823-7004; pedprogram@syseng.ci.portland.or.us), 1998.
29
Types of Pedestrians
Pedestrians have special characteristics that must be considered in planning. They are highly diverse, including joggers, healthy adults in a hurry, groups enjoying a leisurely stroll, people carrying packages, people stopped to tie a shoe or enjoy a view, parents with children, people with pets on a leash, the elderly, and people using mobility aids. Pedestrian traffic averages about 4 feet per second (4.5 kilometers per hour), with a range of 2.5 to 8.0 feet per second (2.8 to 9.0 kilometers per hour), or even more.36 Facilities should be designed to meet the needs of all users. Pedestrian space requirements range from less than 1 square metre to several square metres for people with a cart, a pet on a leash, or a group. Steps, steep inclines, and surface irregularities can present significant obstacles to children, seniors, people with disabilities, and people using strollers or handtrucks. The lack of a sidewalk or ramp may mean little to an able-bodied person, who can sidestep the inconvenience, but some pedestrians may need to use an alternative route just to descend a curb. Pedestrians generally travel more slowly than any other mode. They may be difficult for drivers to see and are vulnerable to injury if hit by a vehicle, particularly when traffic speeds are moderate or high. Pedestrians are particularly sensitive to traffic congestion, detours, roadway conditions, street aesthetics, and perception of street crime.
36
Roadway Design Considerations, in Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities: A Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE (www.ite.org), 1998, p. 8.
30
Pedestrian planning involves more than just providing and maintaining sidewalks and paths. It also requires consideration of pedestrian needs in roadway design. The pedestrian environment can be enhanced with more human-scale streets with narrower roadway widths, lower traffic speeds, smaller corner radii, planter strips, crosswalks (particularly crosswalks with signals, curb bulges, textured surfaces, raised surfaces, and adequate lighting), street trees, and pedestrian amenities. Traffic calming strategies, described later in this report can also significantly improve the pedestrian environment. Parking lots can be high-risk areas for pedestrians. Parking facility design guidelines are available that include strategies to reduce pedestrian risks.37 For example, parking lots should have walkways to channel pedestrians safely across traffic lanes, and defines ways to improve pedestrian visibility and security. The pedestrian environment can also be enhanced with land use policies that result in more mixed use development (so residences, employment centers and commercial businesses are within walking distance of each other), narrow road widths, a more connected street network (minimal dead-ends and cul de sacs), and more human-scale development. Resources for this type of community design are described later in this report in the Livable Communities section. Planning Tip Pedestrian Underpasses The following guidelines are recommended for pedestrian underpasses: (1) Always provide a clear view from one end of the underpass to the other, and if at all possible avoid any curvature, either horizontal or vertical. (2) Make the motor vehicles climb a few degrees on the overpass so that pedestrians and cyclists can pass underneath at grade. Downhill slopes into an underpass should be avoided to keep cyclists from attaining excessive speeds. (3) Dont build stairs down to underpasses; they discriminate against the nonmotorized users and deter use of the system. (4) Provide bright, attractive and secure lighting throughout the underpass at all times.
37
G.D. Hamilton Asso., Safety Design Guidelines for Parking Facilities; A Recommended Practice, Road Improvement Program, ICBC (Vancouver; www.icbc.com), 1998.
31
32
Pedestrian Commercial Districts Pedestrianized commercial districts (Mainstreets) can be important for urban revitalization, although they must be carefully implemented to be effective. 38 They can help create a lively and friendly environment that attracts residents and visitors. Some are closed to motor vehicle traffic altogether, or during some time periods, such as evenings or weekends, while others use traffic calming design strategies to control traffic speeds and volumes.39 Business and residents should be involved in planning and managing pedestrian commercial streets. Often, a downtown business organization or Transportation Management Association will oversee streetscape development, as well as parking management and promotion activities.
38
Amanda West, Pedestrian Malls: How Successful Are They? Main Street News (www.mainst.org/pedmallarticle.htm), Sept. 1990; Kent Robertson, the Status of the Pedestrian Mall in American Downtowns, Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2, Dec. 1990, pp. 250-273; Norm Tyler, Downtown Pedestrian Malls, (www.emich.edu/public/geo/557book/c120.auto.html). 39 Ian Boyd, Pedestrian-Oriented Environments, in Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities: A Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE (www.ite.org), 1998.
33
Planning Tip Planning for Large Pedestrian Crowds (Experience from the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, by Ian Napier, Secretary, Pedestrian Council of Australia) Up to half a million pedestrians were moved in, out or through the Homebush Bay site on the busier days of competition and from my observation and others reports it worked very well. The lessons from it were:
Avoid, where possible, two-way pedestrian routes. (The main flows were organised in huge one-way converging and diverging loops and where necessary temporary overpasses had been put in so that the conflicting flows could cross.) Keep people moving where possible. This of course has its limits. People will start to resent being moved just for the sake of it especially if they know the territory and are aware that they are being sent the long way round. Generally there is the reassurance however that one is making progress. Keep people informed at all times. The information is in a number of forms the fixed signs using internationally recognisable symbols wherever possible, -large programmable message screens (more familiar as warning signs for roadworks on highways), - people with loud hailers on raised positions able to direct and inform the crowds, easily identified staff (in this case usually volunteers) able to monitor progress and answer questions at ground level. fixed and clearly identified information booths. Keep people amused/entertained- here we were blessed with an army (not THE army, although they were in the background if needed) of goodnatured, tolerant, and often very amusing, volunteers who have been hailed as the secret of Sydney. Street performers and musicians were located at critical points where queues were anticipated. There were even stories of railway staff breaking into song and announcing trains in rhyming couplets. Provide escape routes and eddy spaces so that people dont feel trapped in crowds Provide shady and sheltered places that people can rest and relax between events. Provide diversions for children of all ages. Build in sufficient flexibility to cope with varying numbers and unexpected eventualities. For example, queuing races (barriers used to shape lines) can be short circuited when the crowds are smaller. Raising (or lowering as the case may be) expectations in order to modify behaviour. By the time the Olympics arrived no one in their right mind expected that they could drive all the way to events. They expected queues and long walks and in the end seemed to accept that with good humour.
34
4.
It is important that public facilities be accessible to the greatest number of people including those with disabilities. This is called universal design. A variety of universal design guides and standards are available.
Resources
Accessible Design The Access Board (800-872-2253; www.access-board.gov) is a U.S. federal agency that develops policies and recommendations for accessible design. Publications include Accessible Rights of Way: A Design Manual, 1999; ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities, 1998; Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards; and Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part One. American Council of the Blind (1155 15th Street NW, Suite 720, Washington, DC 20005; 202467-5081; www.acb.org/pedestrian) supports programs to help people with visual impairments, including pedestrian improvements. Beneficial Designs, Inc. et al., Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access; Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices, USDOT, Publication No. FHWA-HEP-99-006, 1999. Access Exchange International (San Francisco; globalride-sf@worldnet.att.net) is a non-profit organization that provides resources and coordination to develop cost-effective handicapped access in developing as well as developed countries. Institute on Independent Living (www.independentliving.org) serves self-help organisations of disabled people. Full-text online library including access and transport issues. Access Management Publications, U.S. National Transportation Library (www.bts.gov/ntl/subjects/access.html). E. Gallagher and V. Scott, Taking Steps; Modifying Pedestrian Environments to Reduce the Risk of Missteps and Falls, School of Nursing, University of Victoria (www@aimnet.bc.ca), 1996. Pedestrian Access Guidelines, City of North Vancouver, (www.cnv.org), 1998. PLAE, Inc., Universal Access to Outdoor Recreation: A Design Guide, 1993, MIG Communications, 1802 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710. (510) 845-0953. Recommended Street Design Guidelines for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired. American Council of the Blind (www.acb.org), (202) 467-5081. US Federal Highway Administration Accessibility Website (www.dot.gov/accessibility). U.S. Department of Justice ADA Homepage (www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm) provides information on implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act.
35
Resources
Pedestrian Planning America WALKs (www.webwalking.com/amwalks) is a coalition of walking advocacy groups. FHWA, A Walkable Community; Your Town USA, FHWA-SA-00-010, USDOT (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ped_bike.htm), 2000. ITE, Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities, Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC; www.ite.org), publication RP-026A, 1998, US$38. National Transportation Week Pedestrian Website (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/ntw/bikeped.htm) provides information and links to pedestrian planning websites. Pedestrian Planning Guidebook; Incorporating Pedestrians in Washingtons Transportation System, Washington State DOT (www.wsdot.wa.gov/hlrd/PDF/PedFacGB.pdf) Partnership for a Walkable America, (http://nsc.org/walk/wkabout.htm) promotes the benefits of walking and supports efforts to make communities more pedestrian friendly. Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual, Transportation Asso. of Canada (www.tac-atc.ca), 1998. Pednets International Pedestrian Lexicon (glossary) (http://user.itl.net/~wordcraf/lexicon.html) Rhys Roth, Getting People Walking: Municipal Strategies to Increase Pedestrian Travel, WSDOT (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.htm), 1994. UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadsafety/rs/index.htm) publishes Road Safety Education in Schools Good Practice Guidelines that describe how to create a safer pedestrian environment. The U.S. Federal Highway Administrations pedestrian program (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk) provides pedestrian safety information and resources. Portland Office of Transportation, Portland Pedestrian Design Guide and Pedestrian Master Plan, City of Portland (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Sidewalks_and_Pedestrians.html), 1998. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (1-877-WALKBIKE; www.bicyclinginfo.org) provides a variety of technical information on nonmotorized transport planning and programs. Walkable Communities, Inc. (www.walkable.org) works with communities to create more people-oriented environments. Walkability Checklist, Partnership for a Walkable America (http://nsc.org/walk/wkabout.htm) is a survey that allows children and parents assess how walkable their neighborhood is. Walking Steering Group, Developing a Walking Strategy, Dept. of the Environment Transport and the Regions, downloadable at www.local-transport.detr.gov.uk/walk/walk.htm, 1996. Walk Tall; A Citizens Guide to Walkable Communities, Rodale Press (Emmaus) and Pedestrian Federation of America (Washington DC; www.bikefed.org), 1995. WSDOT, Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook: Incorporating Pedestrians Into Washingtons Transportation System, Washington State Department of Transportation (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.htm), 1997. WSDOT Pedestrian website (www.wsdot.wa.gov/hlrd/Sub-defaults/Pedestrian-default.htm) provides extensive information.
36
5.
Pedestrian safety training is particularly important for children. A number of resources are now available to assist parents, teachers, and traffic agencies develop suitable programs based on a realistic appreciation of childrens learning and behavior comprehension.
Resources
Pedestrian Education for Children Khaled Abbas, Ibrahim Mabrouk, and Khaled El-Araby, School Children as Pedestrians in Cairo: Proxies for Improving Road Safety, Journal of Transport Engineering, July/Aug. 1996, pp. 291-299. Marvin Aoki and Lawrence Moore, KIDSAFE: A Young Pedestrian Safety Study, ITE Journal, Sept. 1996, pp. 36-45. Children on the Move site on children and transport: www.ecoplan.org/children Mayer Hillman (editor), Children, Transport and the Quality of Life, Policy Studies Institute (London), 1993. Mayer Hillman, Foul Play for Children: A Price of Mobility, Town and County Planning, Oct. 1988, pp. 331-332. Kerbcraft; Smart Strategies for Pedestrian Safety, UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadsafety/rs2/kerb.pdf), 1998. A curriculum for teaching children how to cross streets where there is no traffic signal. NHTSA, Pedestrian Safety Toolkit, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.gov), 1999. Perils for Pedestrians (www.pedestrian.org) is a cable television series promoting awareness of issues affecting pedestrian safety. Their website includes advocacy tips and links to other pedestrian organizations. Problems of Attention and Visual Search in the Context of Child Pedestrian, Behaviour, UK DETR, (www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadsafety/rscdr/no8/index.htm), 1999. Pedestrian/Bicyclist Resource Kit, FHWA (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk). Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool, FHWA-RD-99-192, FHWA (202-493-3315; www.tfhrc.gov). Ian Roberts, Robyn Norton and Binki Taua, Child Pedestrian Injury Rates, The Importance of Exposure to Risk Relating to Socioeconomic and Ethnic Differences, in Auckland, New Zealand, Health, Journal of Epidemiol Community, Vol. 50, 1996, pp. 162-165. R.A. Schieber and N.J. Thompson, Developmental risk factors for childhood pedestrian injuries Injury Prevention, Vol. 2, 1996, pp. 228-236. Speed Kills, The Benefits of Slower Speeds, and Why Reduce Speeds, UK Anti-speed Campaign (www.speed-campaign-info.fsnet.co.uk). Study Addresses Safety Of Children On Their Way To And From School, CUTR, (www.cutr.eng.usf.edu/new/news_let/articles/winterB98/winterB98-1.htm), 1998. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (www.hsrc.unc.edu).
37
38
There are five major categories of bicycle facilities: 1. Bike paths and trails (Class I bicycle facilities) are entirely separated from the roadway except at infrequent intersections. These are generally multi-use facilities used by both bicyclists and pedestrians. These are generally multi-use facilities for pedestrians, and sometimes equestrians, as well as bicyclists. 2. Bike lanes (Class II bicycle facilities) are a portion of the road marked with a line, for use by bicyclists. They are always one-way facilities, with cyclists traveling in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic in the adjacent lane. Bike lanes often become dashed lines approaching an intersection to indicate that cyclists may shift lanes, and motor vehicles may pass through the lanes as needed for turning. Bike lanes are generally found on arterial roads and on major collectors. See the National Bicycling and Walking Study #4 (FHWA 1991) for a comparison of the merits and hazards of striped lanes, shoulders, and wide curb lanes. 3. Bike routes (Class III bicycle facilities) are roads particularly suitable for cycling that are marked with signs. This is typically appropriate for streets with low traffic speeds (40 km/h or less) and volumes (3,000 vehicles per day or less). This may be an opportunistic classification or may be the result of specific traffic management and traffic calming modifications. Bike routes may direct cyclists away from high speed traffic, high congestion traffic, or difficult intersection situations. Bicycle Boulevards are roads that have been modified with traffic management and traffic calming features to be particularly suitable for cycling. Note that a network of bike routes does not eliminate the need to make all roads safe for cycling. 4. Other roadway improvements for cyclists include wide, paved shoulders for use in rural areas, level joints and utility covers, safe drain grates, prompt and smooth repairs, smooth railroad track crossings, bicycle sensitive traffic sensors, frequent sweeping and debris cleanup, high traction paint for roadway markings, etc. 5. Destination facilities include parking facilities, showers and clothes lockers. Some people prefer segregated facilities, such as bike paths and trails. They consider such facilities to be more pleasant and safer to use. Many people cite the lack of such facilities as a major barrier to increased cycling. Others prefer integrated facilities, such as bike lanes, bike routes, and roadway improvements for their more complete access to destinations and because they are generally suitable for faster riding.40 Segregated facilities sometimes have higher crash rates if they create confusion at intersections or have inadequate designs, and because cyclists must share trails with pedestrians, playing children, and leashed or uncontrolled pets. Both bike lanes and wide curb lanes must be properly designed to insure safety.41 Paths and trails can often be developed on available rights-of-way along waterways, abandoned railroad lines, open space at new developments, and greenbelts. These can help create a network that satisfies a range of cyclists preferences. Sometimes multi-lane arterials can be restriped to provide more space for cyclists in the curb lane, by narrowing the inner lanes.42 This will allow capacity to increase by the amount of cycling added without decreasing the capacity due to slower moving cyclist.
40 41
John Forester, Effective Cycling, MIT Press, 1993. W.W. Hunter, et al, Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Operational and Safety Findings and Countermeasure Recommendations, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.gov), 1999. 42 Dan Burden and Peter Lagerwey, Road Diets; Fixing the Big Roads, Walkable Communities (www.walkable.com), 1999.
39
Sidewalks are generally unsuitable to be used as bikeways for the following reasons: Sidewalks are generally not designed for cycling speeds. Cyclists must either reduce their speed or travel too fast for conditions. There is generally insufficient width for shared bicycle and pedestrian travel, particularly due to obstacles such as utility poles, signs, and street furniture that narrows the effective width of the sidewalk. Bicyclists face conflicts with motor vehicles at driveways and intersections. Motorists are generally not expecting a cyclist to cross their path from the sidewalk, and may not be looking for them. Traffic rules, such as obligations to yield, are unclear when cyclists ride on sidewalks, creating confusion and risk between pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
Sidewalk cycling may be safe for supervised children in uncrowded areas riding at walking speeds, but becomes increasingly hazardous as speed is increased and as crossing traffic increases in driveways and intersections. Most communities should probably develop a range of facilities to meet the demands for the various types of cycling opportunities. A primary effort should be made to insure that all roads are safe for cycling and to create attractive routes in, or parallel to, major travel corridors. For example, even if a separated path provides cycle access to a college or employment center, it is also important to accommodate cycling on access roads for those who ride too fast for multi-use trails, and for cyclists arriving from directions that are most directly reached by the road. Similarly, some cyclists may sometimes prefer a faster, more direct route, although it has more hills or traffic, while at other times take a longer route which is flatter or has less traffic. Communities should strive to have at least some bicycle facilities that are particularly attractive, such as through a park or along a shoreline, for recreational cycling. A bicycle facility plan should include maintenance standards that apply to trails, paths, bike lanes, and all roads. For example, it may specify the types of stormwater grates that will be installed in the future, and pavement maintenance standards that will apply to roads and road shoulders.
40
Table 7 summarizes recommended shoulder bikelane widths. Extra width is required on steep grades and where there is a curb. A bikeway of 1.5-1.8 metre width is needed under such conditions. On shoulder widening projects there may be opportunities to save money by reducing the thickness of aggregate (50-75 mm) and asphalt (100 mm) if: There are no planned roadway widening projects for the road section in the foreseeable future. The existing road shoulder area and roadbed are stable and there is adequate drainage. Existing travel lanes have adequate width and are in stable condition. The horizontal curvature is not excessive, so wheels of large trucks do not track onto the shoulder. The existing and projected vehicle traffic volumes and truck traffic are not excessive.
Design Tip If rumble strips (raised or grooved markings at the edge of the road to alert motorists running off the roadway) are installed along highways, it is important to provide adequate smooth, paved shoulder beyond the rumble strips to accommodate cyclists.46 A good design is to have 400 mm grooves cut into the shoulder 150 mm to the right of the fog line (the white line at the edge of the road), leaving at least 1.8 m of smooth shoulder for cyclists.
Bicycle Boulevards
Bicycle Boulevards are designated bicycle routes on urban and suburban streets that use traffic management and traffic calming strategies to control motor vehicle traffic while allowing good
43
Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, ITE, FHWA (available online at www.bikefed.org/local.htm), 1998. A.M. Khan and A. Bacchus, Bicycle Use of Highway Shoulders, Transportation Research Record 1502, 1995, pp. 8-21. 44 Michael Ronkin, Reasons for Highway Shoulders, Oregon DOT (available at www.walkable.org). 45 Oregon DOT Highway Design Manual, ODOT (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk ). 46 P. Garder, Rumble Strips or Not Along Wide Shoulders Designated for Bicycle Traffic, Transportation Research Record 1502, TRB (www4.nationalacademies.org/trb), 1995, pp. 1-7.
41
mobility for cyclists and pedestrians. For example, a Bicycle Boulevard may be a residential street with barriers every five or six blocks that restrict or severely limit motor vehicle traffic but allow bicycles and pedestrians to easily pass. Traffic speeds are typically reduced to about 25 kilometres per hour through speed limits and traffic calming. Motorists still have full access along the street, but cannot use it for through passage. The Bicycle Boulevard has priority at intersections with most cross streets.
Bicycle racks and lockers must be well anchored to the ground to avoid vandalism and theft. They should be located where cycles already parked, or where recommended by bicycle advisory groups. Signs may be needed to indicate bike rack location. The following factors should be considered when locating bike parking facilities:
Visibility Racks should be highly visible so cyclists can spot them immediately when they arrive from the street. A visible location also discourages theft and vandalism. Security Adequate lighting and surveillance is essential for the security of the bicycles and the users. Weather Protection Where possible to protect bicycle parking from the weather. It is recommended to use an existing overhang or covered walkway, or construct a freestanding roof. Clearance of at least 2 meters is recommended. Adequate Clearance Racks should be located so that parked bicycles do not block the pedestrian path. Adequate clearance around the racks is required, to give pedestrian clearance, and clearance from the curb or parked cars. Racks should not be placed at loading areas, near a fire hydrant, and should not block building entrances or obscure sight lines.
42
Table 8
Type
N/A Class I 100% Class II 6 space rack Class I 60% Class II 40% Class I 50% Class II 50% Class I 30% Class II 70% Class I 80% Class II 20% Class I 75% Class II 25% Class I employees college, university 10% Class II students
RESIDENTIAL Single family / two family Apartment / Townhouse COMERCIAL Hotel / Motel Office, retail sales of goods and services, restaurants, research establishments, laboratories Shopping Centre INDUSTRIAL (ALL) INSTITUTIONAL Hospitals Schools
Elementary Junior Secondary Senior Secondary College University Churches Library / Museum/ Art Gallery Personal Care / Nursing Home / Group Home Correctional Institutions CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL Community Centre Stadium, Arena, Pool, Exhibition Hall, similar places with spectator facilities Gymnasium, Health Spa
1 per 10 students 1 per 8 students 1 per 8 students 1 per 5 students 1 per 5 students (full time, max. attendance) 1 per 50 members a per 100 m2 GFA 1 per 15 dwelling units 1 per 50 beds
Class II 100% Class I 20% Class II 80% Class I 75% Class II 25% Class I 70% Class II 30% Class I 20% Class II 80% Class I 20% Class II 80%
Class I 20% Class II 80% Bowling Alley, Curling Rink 1 per 2 alleys or sheets Class I 20% Class II 80% Class I bicycle parking provides complete protection for a bicycle and equipment. Class II facilities are racks that a bicycle can be securely locked to.
43
Resources
Bicycle Parking Facilities Bicycle Coalition of Massachusetts bicycle parking information, providing bicycle parking bylaws and manufactures contacts (www.users.thecia.net/users/bcom/lawlegis/parking.htm). Bicycle Parking Facilities Guidelines, City of Portland (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/Bicycle_Program/parkguide.htm)
Table 9
48
Park-and-Ride
30 $10,000 - $12,000 $110
Bike-and-Ride
1-2 $140 - $800 $0 - $30
Another approach is to accommodate bicycles on transit vehicles. This allows a bicycle to be used at both ends of the journey, and provides an option when cyclist cannot ride due to a mechanical failure, changes in weather, or other any other reason. Many public transit agencies have installed special racks to carry bicycles on buses, or have policies that allow bicycles to be carried as luggage or within vehicles during off-peak periods.
47
Planning and Marketing Division, Bicycle Locker Demonstration Program, BC Transit (Vancouver), 1992, p. 5. 48 M. Replogle and H Parcells, Linking Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities with Transit, U.S. Federal Highway Administration (Washington DC), 1992, pp. 84-88.
44
Resources
Transit and Bicycle Integration Bicycles & Transit; A Partnership That Works, Federal Transit Administration (www.fta.doc.gov). Bike Racks On All Metro Buses (http://transit.metrokc.gov/bike/bikeride.html). Describes bike rack program in Seattle area. Michelle DeRobertis and Rhonda Rae, Buses and Bicycles: Design Alternatives for Sharing the Road, ITE Journal, Vol. 71, No. 5 (www.ite.org), May 2001, pp. 36-44. Planning and Marketing Division, Bicycle Locker Demonstration Program, BC Transit (Vancouver), 1992. Michael Replogle and Harriet Purcells, Linking Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities with Transit, National Bicycle and Walking Study, Case Study No. 9, FHWA, (Washington DC; www.bikefed.org), 1992. Steve Spindler and John Boyle, Bikes on Transit (www.bikemap.com/trans.html), 1999. Website lists transit agencies that accommodate bicycling. Taking Bikes on Bay Area Transit (www.transitinfo.org/Bikes/bike.html), 1999. Website provides information on the requirements and rules for carrying bicycles on transit vehicles by various San Francisco Bay area transit agencies. Transit Cooperative Research Program TCRP Synthesis 4, Integration of Bicycles and Transit, Transportation Research Board (www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/homepage.nsf), 1994. Toronto Transit Commission (1994) TTC Bike and Ride Study Final Report, Toronto, Ontario.
45
Surface Repairs Inspect bikeways and road shoulders regularly for surface irregularities, such as potholes, pavement gaps or ridges. Such hazards should be repaired quickly. Sweeping - Establish a sweeping schedule. Sweeping road shoulders of accumulated sand and gravel in the springtime, and fallen leaves in the autumn where they accumulate. Sweepings should be picked up rather than just pushed aside in areas with curbs. Driveway approaches may be paved to reduce loose gravel on paved roadway shoulders. Pavement Overlays Where new pavement is installed, extend the overlay to the edge of the roadway. If this is not possible, ensure that no ridge remains at the edge of the road shoulder or bike lane. Do not leave a ridge within the bike travel area. Drain grates should be within 6 millimetres of the pavement height to create a smooth travel surface. Special attention should be given to ensure that utility covers and other road hardware are flush with new pavement. Rail Crossings Rail crossings can be hazardous to cyclists, particularly if they are at an oblique angle. Warning signs and extra space at the road shoulder can allow cyclists to cross at a 90 angle. A special smooth concrete apron or rubber flange may be justified at some crossings. Vegetation Vegetation may impede sight lines, or roots may break up the travel surface. Vegetation should be cut back to ensure adequate sight lines, and invasive tree roots may be cut back to preserve the travel surface. Street Markings bike lane markings signal loop indicators may become hard to see over time. These should be inspected regularly and retraced when necessary. Snow removal Road plowing should extend into the lane space used by cyclists. Spot salting intersections often creates a hazardous icy patch just past the melted intersection. Trails that get significant winter cycling should be plowed unless they are relegated to ski/snowshoe users. Roadway Markings Whenever roadway markings are used, traction or non-skid paint should be used to avoid the markings becoming slippery in wet weather.
49
Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, ITE, FHWA (available online at www.bikefed.org/local.htm), 1998.
46
Resources
Bicycle Planning AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (www.aashto.org), 1999. The Bicycle Federation of America (Washington DC; 202-463-6625; www.bikefed.org) provides extensive resources for bicycle and pedestrian planning. CIP, Community Cycling Manual, Canadian Institute of Planners (www.cip-icu.ca), 1999, available through Go For Green (www.goforgreen.ca). The Community Bicycle Network (CBN) Factsheets, newsletter, curriculum guides, and action manuals, Detour Publications (www.web.net/~detour/cbn). Guidelines on Cycle Audit and Cycle Review, IHT (www.iht.org), 1998. John Forester, Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers, MIT Press, 1994. A comprehensive guide written by an advocate of integrated cycle planning. William Hunter, et al, Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Operational and Safety Findings and Countermeasure Recommendations, FHWA, FHWA-RD-99-035 (www.tfhrc.gov), 1999. Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, ITE, Federal Highway Administration (available online at www.bikefed.org/local.htm), 1998. National Bicycle and Walking Study (24 volumes), FHWA, (Washington DC; www.bikefed.org/local.htm), 1991-95. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.dot.gov) has safety resources. Northwestern University Traffic Institute (Evanston, Illinois; 800-323-4011; www.nwu.edu/traffic) offers bicycle planning and facility design workshops. Oregon DOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/obpplan.htm) shows nonmotorized planning at its best. The Bicycle Information Center (www.bicyclinginfo.org) provides information on nonmotorized transport planning and programs. Pedestrian/Bicyclist Resource Kit, FHWA (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk). Suzan Anderson Pinsof and Terri Musser, Bicycle Facility Planning, Planners Advisory Service, American Planning Association (Chicago; 312-786-6344), 1995. SWOV, Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking, Denmark Ministry of Transport (vd@vd.dk), European Commission Directorate General of Transport, 1998. TAC, Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines, Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa; 613736-1350; www.tac-atc.ca), 1999. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (www.hsrc.unc.edu). John Williams, Bruce Burgess, Peter Moe and Bill Wilkinson, Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level, FHWA, Report FHWA-RD-98-105, 1998. The WSDOT Bicycle website (www.wsdot.wa.gov/hlrd/Sub-defaults/Bicycle-default.htm) has information and examples of Washingtons outstanding bicycle planning programs.
47
Bicycle and pedestrian safety programs can help reduce the risk of crashes and injuries.
Education of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists is essential for non-motorists safety and mobility. This can be one of the most effective and cost effective ways of reducing collisions and encouraging cycling. Excellent safety education resources are now available. A number of types of programs can be implemented: In-schools, pedestrian and cycling classes can be integrated with school trip management programs (reducing child auto travel to, and traffic around schools), personal safety and fitness, and physical education programs. Adult cycling skills classes, such as Can-Bike programs, may be taught at recreational facilities, or provided through local traffic safety associations. Public education campaigns targeting motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians covering cyclists and pedestrians rights and safety skills (such as Go Greens Share the Road campaigns).
Although many communities have some programs, few communities have enough pedestrian and cycling programs to educate a significant portion of the population. Responsibility for such programs is fragmented, and there is seldom stable funding.
Resources
Safety Education Bike Smarts (Vancouver; 800-565-7727; 604-738-2468; jwsporta@mindlink.bc.ca) provides resources for training cycling safety skills to children 7-13 years old. Canadian Cycling Association (Gloucester, Ontario; www.canadian-cycling.com) manages the Can-Bike cycling education program. Anne Fritzel, Smart Moves for Washington Schools, Climate Solutions (www.climatesolutions.org), 2000. HSRC (Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina), Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), available free from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org), 2000. This is a crash typing software product intended to assist development of a database containing details associated with crashes between motor vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. League of American Bicyclists Education Programs (www.bikeleague.org/ec2/education.htm) provides a variety of resources. Way To Go! School Program, small steps towards a big difference, (Vancouver; 1-877-3253636; www.waytogo.icbc.bc.ca) provides a variety of safety education strategies and materials, and information on increasing walking and cycling to school. Marcus R. Wigan, Using Geographic Information Systems to Promote Vulnerable Road User Safety Education, Conference on Road Safety, Proceedings, Australian College of Road Safety, Canberra, 1998, pp. 67-76.
48
Effective enforcement requires overcoming various barriers. Nonmotorized traffic violations, particularly by children, are often considered a low priority by police and the community. Standard traffic fines may appear excessive. Cyclists and pedestrians may ignore citations unless police departments develop a suitable processing system. A bicycle diversion program allows offending cyclists to take a cycling safety workshop as an alternative to paying a traffic fine (i.e., they are diverted from the court system). Police departments can run such workshops internally or contract with an outside expert. Such programs are popular because they emphasize safety rather than punishment, and help develop cooperation among police, parents, and bicycle safety advocates. Scout troops, school groups, and parents often attend the safety workshops voluntarily. Heres how such programs typically work: Cyclist is ticketed for violating a traffic law. If the cyclist is a child, police send a standard letter to their parents describing the violation, emphasizing the importance of observing bicycle traffic laws for the sake of safety, asking the parent to bring the child to a bicycle safety workshop (typically offered monthly or semi-monthly) within a specified time period (such as three months), and inviting the parent to contact the program coordinator if they have any questions. If the cyclist attends the workshop the traffic ticket is void and destroyed. If the cyclist fails to attend the workshop in the specified period, the ticket is processed. Police and courts coordinate to allow efficient processing of cyclist traffic tickets.
Resources
Bicycle Law Enforcement NHTSA, Resource Guide on Laws Related to Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/ResourceGuide/index.html), contains a compilation of U.S. vehicle and traffic laws that affect walking or cycling. International Police Mountain Bike Association (www.ipmba.org) is an organization of police officers who use bicycles for patrol.
49
Increased nonmotorized transportation can help achieve Transportation Demand Management (TDM) objectives, and provides other community benefits including improved public health, and local economic development. There are a number of strategies to help encourage and promote walking and bicycling to support these objectives. Examples include: Transportation demand management programs, such as parking cash out (giving commuters who dont drive to work the cash equivalent of parking subsidies provided to drivers), which provide financial incentives to use travel alternatives such as walking and cycling. Parks, recreational programs, or non-profit groups can sponsor walking and cycling events and activities, particularly on trails and cycling routes. Tourist promotion materials can highlight walking and cycling. Special bicycle events can raise the profile of cycling in the community. Bike to Work Week (usually held in June) offers commuters an opportunity to try cycling. The event may include special publicity, special guidance to first-time bicycle commuters on choosing a route, or special breakfasts for bicycle commuters. Bike to Work Week events have been held in many BC communities for several years.
Bike Maps A bicycle map can be published which shows cycling facilities, recommended routes, roadway conditions (shoulders, traffic volumes, special barriers to cycling, etc.) hills, recreational facilities, and bicycle shops to help potential cyclists identify their best routes.
50
Resources
Bicycle Encouragement and Transportation Demand Management ADONIS, Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking, Cordis Transport Program (www.cordis.lu/transport/src/adonisrep.htm), 1999. Association for Commuter Transportation (Washington DC; 202-393-3497, fax: 202-347-8847; http://tmi.cob.fsu.edu/act/act.htm) is a non-profit organization supporting TDM programs. BEST Better Environmentally Sound Transportation (Vancouver; 604-669-2860; www.sustainability.com/best) provides resources to promote transportation alternatives. Center for Urban Transportation Research, USF (Tampa; http://cutr.eng.usf.edu). Provides TDM materials and classes. Publishes TMA Clearinghouse Quarterly. J. Cleary and Hugh McClintock, Evaluation of the Cycle Challenge Project, Transport Policy, Vol. 7, No. 2, April 2000, pp. 117-125. Commuter Choice Program (www.epa.gov/oms/traq) provides information, materials and incentives for developing employee commute trip reduction programs. Environment Canada Green Lane program (www.ec.gc.ca/emission/5-1e.html) promotes TDM and other strategies for reducing transportation environmental impacts. Anne Fritzel, Smart Moves for Washington Schools, Climate Solutions (www.climatesolutions.org), 2000. Go For Green, The Active Living & Environment Program (www.goforgree.ca) provides resources to promote nonmotorized transportation. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC; www.ite.org) has extensive technical resources on TDM, transportation planning, and traffic calming. UK Health Education Authority (www.hea.org.uk) has excellent material to promote transport exercise and better integration of nonmotorized transport in public health programs. Joseph Milazzo, et al., Quality of Service for Interrupted Pedestrian Facilities in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 1999. Lawrence Frank and Peter Engelke, How Land Use and Transportation Systems Impact Public Health, Active Community Environments, Center for Disease Control (www.cdc.gov), 2000. SWOV, Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking, Denmark Ministry of Transport (vd@vd.dk), European Commission Directorate General of Transport, 1998. Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa; www.tac-atc.ca) provides a variety of resources related to transportation planning and TDM. Washington Department of Transportation, TDM Resource Center (Seattle; 206-464-6145; fax: 206-464-6084; www.wsdot.wa.gov) and Northwest Technology Transfer Center (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/TA/T2/publications.html) offer a variety of resources for TDM planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) provides resources for planning and evaluating TDM, bicycling, and walking programs.
51
VIII.
Various planning strategies and tools used to implement pedestrian and bicycle plans are described in this section.
Comprehensive Plans
U.S. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to develop long-range (20-25 year) Regional Transportation Plans, and a five-year Transportation Implementation Plan (TIP) to quality for federal transportation funds. These plans are required to take into account safety and security for nonmotorized travel, accessibility, environmental and quality of life impacts on a community. A community Comprehensive Plan is a statement of the policy direction of a municipal council that provides a vision, goals, and performance measures. It is an opportunity to integrate pedestrian and cycling improvements into community projects and activities. Specific components that may support nonmotorized travel include:
Goals to increase mobility choices and encourage alternatives to automobile travel. Specific objectives for modal split, facility use, and increased road safety. Policies to review transportation projects and incorporate consideration of bicycle and pedestrian travel where appropriate. Specific objectives for making roadways compatible to walking and cycling. Land use and development codes that accommodate and encourage nonmotorized travel.
50
Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Cycle Review, Institution of Highway and Transportation (London; www.iht.org), 1996.
52
Municipal Laws
Municipal by-laws regulate the actions of residents of the municipality. Bylaws can be changed to provide more safety for nonmotorized travel, and to establish development and design standards that consider pedestrian and cycling needs. For example, bylaws may: Require citizens to clear snow and trim trees along sidewalks on their property. Require construction companies to provide safe and well-signed alternate pedestrian and bicycle routes when construction occurs on walkways and roads. Allow child cyclists to ride on sidewalks, provided they yield to pedestrians. Note: While not ideal, children generally travel at low speeds and do not have the skills to deal with traffic on the roads. Require bicycle parking and allow reductions in automobile parking requirements where walking and cycling are likely to reduce vehicle use. Require adequate pedestrian facilities in new developments, such as sidewalks on both sides of streets, and public paths that connect the ends of new cul de sac streets. Specify road and parking facility designs that accommodate walking and cycling, and control vehicle traffic volumes and speeds where appropriate (see sections below on traffic calming and livable community for specific design guidelines).
53
51
For a good example see Making Streets That Work; Neighborhood Planning Tool, Engineering Dept., City of Seattle (www.ci.seattle.wa.us/npo/tblis.htm), 1996.
54
This section describes a number of specific planning issues that closely relate to nonmotorized transportation planning.
School trips are often made by walking and cycling, and so deserve special attention in nonmotorized transportation planning. But this can only occur if school sites are selected and designed for pedestrian access. A study in South Carolina found that the portion of students walking to school is far higher in older (pre-1970) schools than in schools that were built recently because the newer schools tend to be located at the urban fringe.52 An access plan should be developed for every major educational facility, from grade schools to universities, which addresses constraints and problems to nonmotorized travel. In recent years, an increasing portion of school trips have been made by automobile. This creates a number of problems, including traffic congestion, parking, and neighborhood disruption problems around schools, reduced exercise for children, and environmental impacts. The resulting vehicle congestion and increased collision risk further degrades conditions for nonmotorized modes, encouraging even more driving. Some schools now encourage the use of active (i.e., walking and cycling) modes in order to: Increase physical activity and exercise. Encourage healthier lifestyle habits. Reduce congestion and parking problems around schools. Create safer and calmer streets and neighborhoods. Protect the environment.
Resources
School Trip Management Active and Safe Routes to School (Ottawa; 888-UB-ACTIV; 613-562-531; www.goforgreen.ca) is a Canada-wide program to encourage the use of active modes of transportation to and from school. Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Safe Crossings: Guidelines for School Crossing Programs, Road Safety Program, ICBC (Vancouver; 604-661-6643; www.icbc.com), 1998. Joseph P. Savage, et al., A Guidebook for Student Pedestrian Safety, Washington State Department of Transportation (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.htm) 1996. SUSTRANS Safe Routes to School Project (www.sustrans.co.uk/srts) is a demonstration project in the United Kingdom to show how children can be encouraged to cycle and walk to school. School Travel, School Travel Advisory Group, (www.local-transport.detr.gov.uk/schooltravel), 1999. Way To Go! School Program, small steps towards a big difference, (Vancouver; 1-877-3253636; www.waytogo.icbc.bc.ca) provides resources and support for school traffic reduction programs, including a variety of safety education strategies and materials.
52
Waiting for the Bus: How Lowcountry School Site Selection and Design Deter Walking to School, Southern Carolina Coastal Conservation League (Charleston), 1999.
55
Resources
Traffic Management and Traffic Calming APA, Traffic Calming (1995), American Planning Association (www.planning.org). Dan Burden and Peter Lagerwey, Road Diets; Fixing the Big Roads, Walkable Communities (www.walkable.com), 1999. Stephen Burrington & Veronika Thiebach, Take Back Your Streets; How to Protect Communities from Asphalt and Traffic, Conservation Law Foundation (Boston; www.clf.org), 1995. Congress for the New Urbanisms Narrow Streets database (www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm) provides information on narrower street standards adopted in various communities. David Engwicht, Street Reclaiming; Creating Livable Streets and Vibrant Communities, New Society Publishers (www.newsociety.com), 1999. David Engwicht Communications (www.lesstraffic.com) provides information on street reclaiming. Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC; www.ite.org) publishes a number of useful traffic calming and pedestrian planning documents. Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, provides detailed guidelines for neighborhood traffic management. Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines, 1997. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. 1999, has a collection of case studies. The Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org/clc/pubinfo) provides a variety of useful material including Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods by Dan Burden. The city of Portland (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/trafficcalming) provides excellent information and materials on traffic calming and pedestrian planning. City of Seattle (206-684-4000, Fax: 206-684-5360; www.ci.seattle.wa.us/npo/tblis.htm) has an outstanding neighborhood planning process that includes traffic calming resources. Making Streets that Work is a particularly useful document Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa; 613-736-1350; www.tac-atc.ca) publishes the Canadian Guide to Neighborhood Traffic Calming and sponsors traffic calming workshops.
56
Resources
Access Management U.S. National Transportation Library, Access Management Publication (www.bts.gov/ntl/subjects/access.html). Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, Access Management: A Policy for Local Communities, United States Department of Transportation, 1988. Access Management Program, Oregon DOT, (www.odot.state.or.us/tdb/planning/access_mgt) Joanne Lazarz, Corridor Preservation And Access Management Guidance; Guidelines to Assist Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Addressing Corridor Preservation and Access Management Concerns in their Communities, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (www.bts.gov/ntl/data/plan-policy/access/00223.html), 1994. Land Development and Subdivision Regulations that Support Access Management, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida (www.cutr.eng.usf.edu), 1995.
57
Although these represent a change from design standards used in most North American communities, they are well accepted by transportation professionals. Publications by Institute of Transportation Engineers,53 the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the National Association of Home Builders54 endorse such standards. For example, they recommend 22-24 ft. widths for local streets, and 26-28 ft. widths for subcollectors, rather than the 36-feet that are commonly used. The basic unit of a livable community is a walkable neighborhood, with streets and other public spaces that encourage community interaction. Neighborhoods are clustered to form towns and cities. A variety of compatible land uses are mixed to improve access to employment, retail, and community facilities and services. An interconnected network of lower speed streets is designed for safe and pleasant walking, cycling, and driving, with consideration for transit and people with disabilities. Automobile traffic is discouraged. A mix of residential forms exists to meet diverse housing needs. Livable community designs are energy efficient and respect the natural environment. Planning for nonmotorized transport is essential for development livable communities.
53
Wolfgang Homburger, et al., Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, ITE (Washington DC; www.ite.org), 1989. 54 Residential Streets, American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders, and the Urban Land Institute (Washington DC), 1990.
58
Resources
Livable Community Planning The American Planning Association (www.planning.org) is a professional society for planners that sponsors a Growing Smart initiative and provides many useful materials. Carfree.com (www.carfree.com) explores carfree cities past, present, and future, and provides practical solutions to the problems of urban automobile use. Center for Livable Communities (www.lgc.org/clc) helps local governments and community leaders to be proactive in their land use and transportation planning. Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org) is a movement to develop urban communities built to a human scale. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (www.iclei.org) is the international environmental agency for local governments which provides tool to help communities become healthier and more environmentally responsible. LMN Architects, Model Code Provisions; Urban Streets and Subdivisions, Washington State Community, Trade and Economic Development (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/hldr/pdf/cted.pdf) The National Trust for Historic Preservation (www.nationaltrust.org) focuses on preserving downtown areas and historic buildings. Planners Web (www.webcom.com/pcj), maintained by Planning Commissioners Journal, includes a sprawl resources guide, a primer for citizen planners, a tour of 12 key planning related sites, and a section on conservation design for subdivisions. Project for Public Spaces, Inc. Transit-Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies to Support Livable Communities, TCRP Report 33, Transportation Research Board (Washington DC; www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/homepage.nsf), 1998. Rhys Roth, Redevelopment for Livable Communities, WSDOT (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ta/t2/t2pubs.htm), 1995. The Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) includes planners, govt. officials, lenders, community developers, architects, environmentalists and activists. Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse (www.sprawlwatch.org) provides information, advice & referrals on sprawl & smart growth. Sustainable Communities Network (www.sustainable.org) provides tools to help citizens work together to define a communitys course and make it more sustainable. TAC, Achieving Livable Communities, Transportation Association of Canada (www.tac-atc.ca), 1998. Rodney Tolley, The Greening of Urban Transport, John Wiley (New York), 1997. Transportation for Livable Communities (www.tlcnetwork.org) is a resource for people working to create more livable communities by improving transportation. World Health Organization Healthy Cities Project (www.who.dk/london99) provides information on international efforts to create healthy cities.
59
Appendix 1
Planning Tip
Typical Plan Components 1. Goals and objectives. Define the outcomes that are to be achieved. 2. Bicycle network plan. Identifies infrastructure (trails, bike lanes, bike routes) that provides cycling access to major destinations (schools, commercial centers, intermodal terminals, and recreational areas), and connections to regional and provincial bicycle routes. 3. Design guidelines. This identifies specific dimensions, clearances, safety features, materials, surface treatments, signage, and pavement markings, etc., for facilities, usually based on published standards recommended by a major professional or government organization. 4. Maintenance policies and procedures. This includes maintenance standards and priorities, and indicates who is responsible for implementation. 5. End-of-trip bicycle facilities (bicycle storage racks or lockers, showers, and clothes changing facilities). 6. Capital expenditure plan. Identifies project costs and timing of implementation. 7. Support programs. Includes safety education, law enforcement, and promotion activities. 8. Evaluation. This includes on-going monitoring of facility use, condition, and problems. Purpose: To identify needed improvements to enable and enhance walking and cycling. To provide standards for planning, designing and maintaining bikeways and walkways. To fulfill the requirements of the Growth Strategies Act.
Introduction
The development of Bicycle and Pedestrian plans is an essential component of building cycling and walking communities. This plan outlines the policies for adoption to support cycling and walking in communities. It identifies goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria for pedestrian and bicycle planning, design, education, enforcement, and encouragement. It identifies actions for municipal agencies to implement these objectives. It provides a prioritized list of bicycle and pedestrian network programs and projects, and a recommended budget to ensure the plans implementation. Vision: Walking and bicycling provide safe and convenient access to all destinations within the City. People can walk or ride to and from their transit stops and have a comfortable and convenient place to wait or transfer. Highways, streets, roads, paths, sidewalk, transportation terminals, and land use patterns are designed to accommodate and encourage bicycling and walking. Nonmotorized travel becomes increasingly common for transportation and recreation. Appropriate transportation choices are available to all, including people who do not own or drive an automobile.
60
61
62
The Engineering Department Will: 1. Identify specific bicycle and pedestrian projects in its annual Capital and Current Budgets. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory committee will have the opportunity to comment on these budgets before their consideration by City Council. 2. Implement pedestrian and bicycle facility design and maintenance standards, and modify roadway design and maintenance standards as needed to improve the cycling environment. 3. Collect information on walking and bicycle travel patterns in all future travel surveys. 4. Revise existing subdivision design standards and conditions to ensure that subdivisions are designed with direct pedestrian and bicycle connections and suitable transit access. 5. Organize bicycle and pedestrian planning workshops for Engineering staff, members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory committee, and other appropriate stakeholders. 6. Coordinate efforts with the Parks and Recreation Department to ensure that connections between on-street and off-street facilities are well designed. 7. Notify the Advisory Committee about all major road works and sewer projects where wide curb lanes, sidewalks, or pathways can be established. 8. Initiate a Spot Improvement Program to reduce hazards along popular cycling routes and major pedestrian routes through small-scale, low cost improvements. Bicycle hazards include dangerous potholes, sewer grates, and railway crossings. Pedestrian hazards include missing curb cuts, missing links, uneven and cracked sidewalks. Priority should be given to improvements along the routes identified on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Maps. It is recommended that funds from the existing road maintenance budget be used. A telephone hotline or postcard program should be established to provide cyclists and pedestrians with the convenient opportunity to suggest improvements. 9. Revise its design standards and specifications to ensure bicycle and pedestrian access across and beneath new and renovated bridges and overpasses. 10. Revise the standard tender specifications so that only bicycle-safe sewer grates are purchased. 11. Establish standards to ensure access and safety to pedestrians and cyclists during construction projects. 12. Ensure that all bicycle and pedestrian projects comply with recognized design standards, such as the Guide for the Development of Bicycling Facilities prepared by the America Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO).
63
The Parks and Recreation Department Will: 1. Identify specific bicycle and pedestrian projects in its annual capital and current budgets. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee will have the opportunity to comment on these budgets before their consideration by City Council. 2. Develop path and trail maintenance and repair programs, which should include maintenance standards, a well publicized method for users to report problems, scheduled maintenance, and, if appropriate, use of volunteers to help perform maintenance tasks. 3. Ensure that trails and path accommodate an appropriate range of users. This recognizes that many cyclists prefer to ride on separated paths instead of roads and that the development of pathways will attract walkers, dog walkers, in-line skaters, joggers, and cyclists. It also means that users with special needs, including people with disabilities, children, and elderly will be accommodated on such facilities whenever possible. 4. Provide appropriate signage to identify paths and trails, encourage appropriate trail behaviour, and warn of hazards. 5. Monitor rail-related, utility, or natural area actions to ensure that opportunities to develop pathways within abandoned rail corridors are not missed. 6. Monitor conflicts on trails and paths and take appropriate actions to minimize conflicts. 7. Develop a city or regional bicycle map. 8. Identify priority locations for pathway improvements. This includes pathways that are too narrow, in poor repair, and poorly designed. 9. Prior to the Citys selling or otherwise disposing of public rights of way, the City consider the use of those lands as part of the overall paths/trails system or as informal walkways for nearby residents. 10. When deciding whether to accept lands proffered, either for purchase or otherwise, the City consider the possible use of those lands for off-road travel on foot or by bicycle. Law Enforcement Agencies Will: 1. Establish policies for the enforcement of bicycle traffic laws. This should include education for traffic officers concerning bicycle laws and cyclists rights, education and outreach programs to cyclists and motorists, prioritization of violations that will be cited, policies for citing and fining cyclists (including children and other cyclists who do not have a drivers license), and development of a diversion program, by which cyclists who violate traffic laws can take a bicycling safety class as an alternative to paying a fine. 2. Provide an advanced bicycle skills course to all staff using bicycles for policing, to ensure safe and appropriate riding skills for safest riding, and to provide model examples for other cyclists. 3. Compile and analyze reported bicycle and pedestrian collision statistics on an annual basis. This information will be reviewed by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee and Engineering Department staff to determine ways to reduce road hazards.
64
Public Involvement Public involvement is essential to good pedestrian and bicycle planning. Public involvement can help educate stakeholders, gather information, identify public opinions and priorities, and develop new ideas and plans. The following techniques can make public involvement effective. 1. Visioning It can be useful to begin a planning process with open-ended discussion of what might constitute optimal pedestrian and cycling conditions in a communitys future. This sort of visioning can involve any interested citizens. It looks for common ground among participants and produces a broadly based statement on what the community should strive to achieve. 2. Brainstorming Brainstorming involves freethinking for solutions to a particular problem or set of problems. Issues should be carefully defined prior to the brainstorming session. Generally, as many ideas as possible are listed without comment, then the ideas are evaluated, and finally prioritized. All participants are fully invited to give ideas and no one person is allowed to dominate. In this type of creative and non-critical environment, contentious issues can be viewed in a new light. Brainstorming requires a facilitator who must be sensitive to group dynamics and be able to draw statements and positions for participants. 3. Charrette A charrette is a special meeting involving all stakeholders and resource people to develop a plan or resolve a particular problem. It is typically a day or multi-day event. The objective is to have a basic plan completed by the end of the meeting. 4. Public Meetings A public meeting is held to present information and obtain feedback from citizens. It provides for a presentation from the agency with opportunities for questions and public comment. Anyone may attend a public meeting. They should be well publicized, particularly to appropriate interest groups. Public meetings should be held in locations that are accessible to all users, and people with special needs should be accommodated as much as possible. 5. Publicity Publicity can be used to inform stakeholders about issues and events through newspapers, radio, TV and videos, billboards, posters, direct mail, or flyers. Media strategies should be incorporated into any project that needs public focus, consensus, and understanding for it to move forward. 6. Advisory Committee Many communities establish temporary or permanent pedestrian and bicycle advisory committees with representation from various stakeholder groups as part of nonmotorized transportation planning. The role of an advisory committee is to review and comment on transportation policies and plans from a pedestrian and cyclist perspective and to recommend policies and actions. In addition to helping develop a plan, an advisory committee can help solve future problems, negotiate solutions to conflicts, and support specific projects, such as field surveys, and safety education programs.
65
Planning Tip
Recipe For Developing And Maintaining An Effective Committee. Recruitment Recruit members with a range of perspectives and abilities, and who can make a significant contribution to the work involved. Orientation Provide new appointees with a solid orientation which may include the committees role including duties and responsibilities, how the committee is organized, how the committee works, a review of the committees structure, policies and bylaws, and a review of the committees relationship with citizens, staff, and the governing body. Training Organize field trips, send members to conferences, arrange presentations, and provide committee members with material relevant to bicycle and pedestrian planning, and group and advocacy processes. Work Plan Encourage your committee to determine its priority projects once a year to focus energies. Committee members may also be assigned responsibility for individual projects. Organizing Meetings Make sure that the important issues are brought to the committee. Schedule priority items early in the agenda and provide background material to help deal with difficult questions. Committee Credibility The committee members must understand their role as advisory member bodies providing vision, direction, and assistance to programs. Staff members can help committees by identifying decision-makers and how to expedite (or delay) initiatives. Recognition Committee members are volunteers and need appreciation for the contribution of their time and energy.
66
Special Crosswalks
Sidewalks
WSDOT39
67
Street Furniture
Street Trees
Tree Roots
Surface
must be 0.9 metres wide with a maximum grade of 1:12 and 1:10 on side aprons. Curb cuts for multi-use paths should be the full width of the pathway. Street furniture signs, trash cans, and utility boxes may pose hazards to the visually impaired person. In general, it is suggested that street furniture be grouped together to be more noticeable than they would individually and take up less room. Add contrast with a brighter color, maintain a clear height of pedestrian walkways, and place grouped objects in an area with a different surface, and/or mark with a tactile strip. A minimum planting strip is about six feet in width from the edge of the curb to the edge of the sidewalk. This provides adequate space for the tree to develop, although as little as four feet may be adequate. Trees may be planted in 20, 30, 40 or 50-foot intervals and should form a canopy overhead. Trimming trees to about 9 feet in height preserves sight lines for drivers and pedestrians. Tree species should be carefully chosen for good performance. Potential hazards from tree roots can be controlled by laying a good base of crushed gravel above the tree roots and below concrete sidewalks so they can grow without causing cracks in the sidewalk. (Scott 41). Tree roots that may be a hazard to pedestrians can be painted yellow as a warning. Smooth surfaces such as cement concrete or asphalt are firm and stable enough to support wheelchair wheels, crutch tips, and other mobility aids. Smoothed gravel screenings may be acceptable in recreational settings, however loose gravel and wood chips generally do not provide for an accessible surface.
Scott, 46
STEPS 41
68
AASHTO 12
Lighting
AASHTO 35
Maintenance
AASHTO 41
AASHTO 18 20 FHWA 16-21 MUTCD 9C29C3 CIP20.2-3 AASHTO 14, 15 AASHTO 14, 15
69
Onstreet parking
Intermodal Linkages
Ferries
Separated Facilities
Sidewalks and Ramps Traffic Control Devices Traffic Control Devices Bollards Traffic Signals
Traffic Signs
On-street parking can pose risks to cyclists who ride past, and people with disabilities as they exit their vehicles. Where cars are parallel parked, a bike lane may be provided between the road and parked cars if the bike lane is wide enough and far enough from the vehicles to avoid car doors opening into the bike lane. A bike lane should never be place to the right of parallel parking. Diagonal or perpendicular parking is very dangerous and bike facilities should be avoided in these areas. (WSDOT, 1995) A bike facility may be cement, asphalt, or fine gravel screenings. However, the surface should be at least as smooth as that provided for vehicles and tree roots should be prevented from disrupting the smooth surface. Railroad crossings should be at right angles to the rails as acute angles may trap the wheels and cause crashes. The travel way should be widened if the crossing angle is less than 45 degrees to permit a wider crossing angle. Warning signs and pavement markings should be posted before the crossing. Road surfaces should be flush with the rails. Rubberized flanges around the rails or removal of unused track can minimize the danger for cyclists. Airports, rail, buses, and ferries permit cyclists to reach distant destinations. All trains should be designed to permit bicycles as checked baggage, or in the passenger car. Terminals should provide for secure bicycle parking, and areas may be provided for bicycle set up, and clear access to the station should be provided. Transit buses should be equipped with racks to carry at least two bicycles. Ferries sometimes represent a vital link in the transportation system. Provide for bicycle traffic on vehicle and passenger ferries and at ferry terminals by dedicating bicycle routes through the terminal to boarding areas and providing secure and protected parking at the terminal and on the ferry to prevent damage, theft, and weather exposure. Separated bicycle facilities should NOT be thought of as a substitute for accommodating bicycles on nearby roads. These paths should be considered extensions to the street system and meet an important recreational need. Two-way paths need careful attention to detail where they intersect with traffic. Twinned paths on each side of a road provide more safety, especially at intersections. The minimum width for a oneway path is 1.5 m, and a wider (4m+) path with markings down the center of the path may minimize conflicts where there is heavy traffic. Converting rail lines to trails provide good facilities with good sight lines and shallow grades. Good access including motor vehicle parking, water, toilets, and telephones make for a successful facility. Cycling on the sidewalk is generally not recommended for safety reasons, as there is a high potential for collisions at driveways and intersections. As bicycles are legal vehicles on the road, they do not require special traffic control devices. The same standards which apply to street signs and highways also apply to bicycle facilities. High-traction, non-skid paint should be used on road surfaces. Bollards should be placed where vehicles may enter a bike path; one should be placed in the center, with bollards to the side, each providing 1.5 m clearance. They should be painted white and have reflectors. All traffic signals should be adjusted to detect bicycles. Quadrapole loop detectors are more sensitive to bicycles and may be more effective than standard loop detectors. The most sensitive area of the detector should be stenciled with a bicycle symbol. The right-most and left turning lane should be stenciled in this way. The clearance interval for intersections should be at a bicycle speed of 16km/h with 2.5 second braking time Standard signs are adequate for most bicycle facilities. Signs specifically directed at cyclists should be smaller and lower than normal street signs. Signs should be between 1.2 and 3.0 meters in height and should be 1.0 metres from the edge of the bicycle path to provide adequate clearance for cyclists who may veer off the path to pass. Consideration should be given to adequate stopping distance to heed the warning or information
AASHTO 38
AASHTO 15 36
70
Workplace Facilities
on the sign. BIKE ROUTE signs should be used in conjunction with sub-plates indicating destinations (with distances) to be found along the signed route. In addition, BIKE ROUTE signs must be part of a comprehensive system. At junctions of separated trails with roadways, the name of the road should be clearly visible to trail users. Traffic calming measures usually benefit cyclists by removing or slowing traffic. Some measures need to be carefully designed to accommodate cyclists. For example, where speed bumps or diverters are used, a bypass area for cyclists should be included. Where pinch-points are used, rolled curbs reduce the danger of being squeezed. Traffic calming devices can also be used as refuges for cyclists crossing two-way busy roads. Refuges should be 3 metres wide, by two metres across and provide handrails and bollards. Design features and user policies should be used to minimize conflicts between cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. It is important that vegetation near roadways and paths be maintained. All vegetation above .3 meters in height should be trimmed back a least 1-m on each side of all paths. Vegetation at intersections should be trimmed to provide adequate sight lines. Tree and shrub roots may cause disruption in a path surface, removal of trees within 1 m of the path and the use of root barriers may help to reduce problems. Many people say that they would try commuting by bike but feel they need a shower and a place to change clothes once they arrive at work. Some jurisdictions are requiring that such facilities be provided when a building is built or remodeled. Clothes lockers, large enough to accommodate a weeks worth of clothes and toilet articles, can be provided. A bathroom may be remodeled providing a shower stall.
CIP 20.1.11
AASHTO 37 AASHTO 41
71
Appendix 3
It is important to develop ways to measure the quality of walking and cycling conditions to identify problems and prioritize improvements. This section describes such techniques. Surveys It is often useful to survey the public to identify the problems they perceive with current pedestrian and cycling conditions, and opportunities and priorities for improvements. Public survey forms can be distributed throughout a region, or be targeted at a particular area. Survey forms can be handed out along a sidewalk, path or roadway, can be attached to bicycles and automobiles parked at a study site, or can be distributed through local newsletters and employers. The Partnership for a Walkable America has an Internet-based survey form to evaluate walking conditions (www.nsc.org/walk/wkcheck.htm) that could be replicated in individual communities. Special consideration should be given to pedestrian and bicycle planning along urban and suburban arterials, highways near urban areas, and highways that connect to parks, schools, residential neighborhoods, employment centres, and other trip generators.
Example
Nonmotorized Transport Survey Questions55 1. Are your neighbourhoods designed to promote walking and cycling to get to school, work, recreation, transit, and retail outlets? Are these facilities used? 2. If these facilities are not used, what improvements could make them more accessible? 3. Is street lighting adequate? 4. Are sidewalks maintained, repaired, and cleared of snow in the winter? 5. Are bike lanes part of the roads? 6. Does your community master plan include facilities for cycling and walking? 7. Are there cycling organizations in your community promoting the use of bicycles? 8. Are there bicycle racks at transit stations and outside municipal facilities? 9. Do school organizations promote walking, cycling, and safety programs for both? 10. Do schools and workplaces provide secure bicycle parking? 11. Are local government officials aware of the walking and cycling needs of neighbourhoods? 12. What measures could be taken to calm traffic in your residential neighbourhoods? 13. Can community groups be encouraged to organize bicycle safety workshops? 14. Do local businesses support walking and cycling to their stores? 15. What groups might be involved in promoting active transportation in your community? 16. Are residents encouraged to keep sidewalks clean and clear of snow? 17. Is there bicycle parking near shopping areas and other destinations?
55
72
Crash Data Pedestrian and bicycle collision data can help identify barriers and hazards to nonmotorized travel. Locations with frequent pedestrian or cycling crashes indicate some combination of high risk or heavy use, both of which can justify facility improvements. Crash analysis can be used to identify a variety of possible safety interventions, including pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements, traffic management and traffic calming to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes, and increased traffic safety education and law enforcement for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Pedestrian and cycling collisions tend to be underreported, so a variety of data collection methods may be needed.56 Crash data should be evaluated by type of crash and contributing factors, pedestrian and cyclist demographics, location type (for example, pedestrian crashes can be categorized by intersection crosswalk, midblock crosswalk, midblock no crosswalk, driveways, etc.) to identify possible patterns. Smaller communities may only have few pedestrian/cyclist crash reports to work with. Larger communities may find it valuable to establish an ongoing program to analyze pedestrian/cyclist crash data, and integrate it into a municipal mapping program. Field Surveys Some transportation agencies use volunteers or hired college students to perform field surveys of pedestrian and cycling conditions. If possible, surveys should include special user groups, such as people in wheelchairs and elderly pedestrians, particularly in areas they frequent. The box below lists typical information to collect. Field Survey Data to Collect (as appropriate) Roadway vehicle traffic volumes and speeds. Intersection design, roadway and road shoulder widths, and pavement conditions. Nonmotorized traffic volumes and speeds, and available accident data. Special hazards to walking and cycling (potholes, dangerous drain grates on road shoulders and curb lanes, etc.). Crosswalk, sidewalk, and path conditions (width, surface condition, sight distance, etc.). Curb cuts, ramps and other universal access facilities. Lighting along streets and paths. Presence of parked cars adjacent to the traffic lane. Bicycle parking facilities, public washrooms, and other services along trails and bike routes. Security, cleanliness, vandalism, litter, and aesthetic conditions. Community demographics (age, income, etc.) Presence of activity centers that attract nonmotorized travel (schools, colleges, resorts, etc.) Land use factors, including density and mix, street connectivity, and building site design. Topography and climate.
When evaluating facilities it is important to clearly maintain the distinction between nominal (in name) and functional (working condition) dimensions. For example, many sidewalks and paths are nominally 1.8 to 2 metres wide, but functionally they may be much narrower, due to objects such as telephone poles and signposts located in their right of way, and due to surface failures, such as cracks and potholes. As a result, a walkway that meets technical specifications
56
Helen James, Under-reporting of Road Traffic Collisions, Traffic Eng+Con, Dec. 1991, pp. 574-583.
73
may be inadequate for some potential users. Similarly, a bike lane may be useless if it has poor surface conditions or is frequently used for vehicle parking. It may be difficult to obtain consistent evaluations of roadway conditions by different surveyors. Some cyclists are comfortable riding on roads with heavy, high-speed traffic, and are critical of paths that restrict cycling riding speed due to design limitations. Others have the opposite preferences. This problem can be minimized by establishing clear evaluation criteria. For example, rather than simply rating a highway condition as good or bad for cycling it may be better to record traffic volumes, shoulder width, shoulder condition, and special problems for cyclists. Training and supervision can help guarantee consistency between survey teams. Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Ratings Table A3-1 summarizes a simplified method for evaluating walking and cycling level-of-service. Scores: A = >17; B = >14-17; C = >11-14; D = >7-11; E = >3-7; F = 3 or less. Table A3-1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service for Congestion Management57 Points Bicycle Pedestrian
Outside lane 3.66 m (12) Outside lane 3.66-4.27m (1214) Outside lane >4.27m (14) Off-street/parallel alternative facility Driveways & sidestreets Barrier free No on-street parking Medians present Unrestricted sight distance Intersection Implementation >48 KPH (>30 MPH) 40-48 KPH (25-30 MPH) 24-30 KPH (15-20 MPH) 0 5 6 4 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1 2 Buffer not less than 1m (35) Benches or pedestrian scale lighting Shade trees LOS = E, F, or 6+ travel lanes LOS = D, & < 6 travel lanes LOS = A,B,C, & < 6 travel lanes 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 2 Not continuous or non-existent Continuous on one side Continuous on both sides Min. 1.53 m (5) wide & barrier free Sidewalk width >1.53 (5) Off-street/parallel alternative facility Driveways & sidestreets Ped. Signal delay 40 sec. or less Reduced turn conflict implementation Crossing width 18.3 m (60) or less Posted speed Medians present Points 0 4 6 2 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1
Speed Differential (Max. value = 4) Amenites (Max. value = 2) Motor Vehicle LOS (Max. value = 2)
LOS = E, F, or 6+ travel lanes LOS = D, & < 6 travel lanes LOS = A,B,C, & < 6 travel lanes
0 1 2
57
Linda Dixon, Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems, Transportation Research Record 1538, 1996, pp. 1-9.
74
Major or frequent problems Minor or infrequent problems No problems TDM/Multi Modal No support (Max. value = 1) Support exists
-1 0 2 0 1
Major or frequent problems Minor or infrequent problems No problems No support Support exists
-1 0 2 0 1
The Barrier Effect Roads are usually considered transportation links, but they can also be barriers, especially to nonmotorized travel.58 The barrier effect reduces walking and cycling mobility, and increases driving.59 This is not to imply that drivers intentionally cause harm, but rather that such impacts are unavoidable when fast, heavy vehicles share space with more vulnerable road users. Cycling Condition Evaluation Techniques Table A3-2 shows one method for evaluating cyclist stress levels, taking into account traffic speed, volume, type, operating space, and number of hindrances (intersections and commercial driveways) on a specific stretch of roadway.60
Table A3-2
Stress Rating
1 2 3 4 5
Volume
Vehicles/hr per traffic lane
Trucks
Percentage of truck traffic
Curb Lane
Curb lane width (m)
Hindrances
Commercial driveways and intersections per km
<40 50 60 65 >75
<2% 4% 6% 8% >10%
<6 13 19 25 >31
These values are used to calculate Cycling Suitability Rating in Table A3-2.
Table A3-3
Summed
58
J.M. Clark and B.J. Hutton, The Appraisal of Community Severance, U.K. DoT, Transport Research Laboratory (Crowthorne, UK), Report #135, 1991. 59 Todd Litman, Transportation Cost Analysis; Techniques, Estimates and Implications, VTPI (www.vtpi.org), 2000; Dr. Peter Bein, Monetization of Environmental Impacts of Roads, and Social Cost of Transverse Barrier Effects, Planning Services Branch, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways (Victoria; www.th.gov.bc.ca/bchighways), 1997, 1995. 60 David L. Harkey, Donald W. Reinfurt, J. Richard Stewart, Matthew Knuiman and Alex Sorton, The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-RD98-072 (www.hsrc.unc.edu/oldhsrc/research/pedbike/bci/bcitech.pdf), 1998.
75
Values
<7 7-12 13-17 18-22 >22
Level
1 2 3 4 5 Road is reasonably safe for all types of cyclists. Road accommodates casual and experienced cyclists, but needs improvement to accommodate child cyclist. Road accommodates experienced cyclists, but needs improvement to accommodate casual and child cyclists. Needs improvements to accommodate experienced cyclists, not recommended for casual and child cyclists. May be unsuitable for all cycling.
A more detailed system called the Bicycle Compatibility Index incorporates these factors:61 Presence of bicycle lane or paved shoulder. Bicycle lane or paved shoulder width. Curb lane width. Curb lane volume. Other lane volume. Average traffic speed. Presence of parking lane with more than 30% occupancy. Type of roadside development. Truck volumes. Parking turnover. Right turn lanes.
Pedestrian Condition Evaluation Techniques Generally available demographic, land use, and transportation planning data can be used to estimate pedestrian travel demand.62 Traffic engineers often use Level of Service (LOS) to evaluate roadway performance for motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrian LOS for street crossings has been defined based on pedestrian delay, as shown in Table A3-4.63 Crosswalk walking speeds are estimated at 1.2 metres per second for most areas, and 1.0 m/s for crosswalks serving large numbers of older pedestrians. Table A3-4 Pedestrian Road Crossing Level of Service (LOS)64 Level of Signalized Unsignalized Likelihood of Pedestrian Service Intersection* Intersection* Noncompliance
A B C <10 10-20 20-30 <5 5-10 10-20 Low Moderate
61
David L. Harkey, Donald W. Reinfurt, J. Richard Stewart, Matthew Knuiman and Alex Sorton, The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-RD98-072 (www.hsrc.unc.edu/oldhsrc/research/pedbike/bci/bcitech.pdf), 1998; David L. Harkey, Donald W. Reinfurt, Matthew Knuiman, Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index, Transportation Research Record 1636, 1998, pp. 13-20. 62 Julie Mercer Matlick, If We Build It, Will They Come?, Washington State DOT (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov), undated. 63 Colin Henson, Level of Service for Pedestrians, ITE Journal, Sept. 2000, pp. 26-30. 64 Joseph Milazzo, et al., Quality of Service for Interrupted Pedestrian Facilities in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 1999.
76
A more sophisticated model, called the Walking Security Index (WSI), takes into account a wide range of variables that affect pedestrian safety, comfort, and convenience at roadway intersections, as summarized in Table A3-5. The Fathom model uses a technique called visibility graph analysis, which looks at how visually accessible any point is within a building or area.65 This is found to correlate well with observed flows because pedestrians are sensitive to lines of sight and visual access. Table A3-5 Walking Security Index Variables66 Infrastructure Vehicle Traffic Pedestrian
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. No. of lanes. Speed Grade (incline). Turning lanes. Curb cut at intersections. 6. Stop bar distance from crosswalk. 7. Sight lines 8. Peak vehicle volumes. 9. Vehicle types. 10. Trip purpose. 11. Turning movements. 12. Pedestrian volumes. 13. Pedestrian age.
Performance
14. Right-turnon-red. 15. Signage. 16. Ice/snow/slush removal.
Behavior
17. Pedestrianvehicle collisions. 18. Pedestrianvehicle conflicts. 19. Vehicle moving violations.
The four criteria below are each rated on a scale from 1-3, the total of which represents the Pedestrian Environmental Factor (PEF).67 The results were found to correlate well with the use of non-automobile travel in an urban area. Urban neighborhoods with a high PEF tend to have twice the walk/bicycle mode share as the overall average, as much as five times greater than areas with the lowest PEF. Ease of street crossings. This is based on street width, traffic volumes, and speeds. Sidewalk continuity. Sidewalks that do not connect create barriers to pedestrian travel. A pedestrian network is only as good as its weakest link, particularly for people with physical disabilities. Even problems that appear minor to able-bodied pedestrians may be a major barrier to people with significant mobility constraints. Local street characteristics (grid vs. cul de sac). A grid street system provides continuity, allowing more direct access to destinations. Topography. Steep slopes create barriers to pedestrians.
An article in Parking Today suggested Level of Service ratings for pedestrian access to parking, which may be considered appropriate for walking trips in general. Acceptable walking distances are affected by degree of weather protection, climate, line of site (whether pedestrians can see their destination), and friction (interruptions and constraints along the way, such as cross traffic). The table below summarizes the findings.
65 66
www.intelligentspace.com Barry Wellar, Walking Security Index; Final Report, Geography Department, University of Ottawa (Ottawa; 613-562-5725; wellarb@uottawa.ca), 1998. 67 PBQD, The Pedestrian Environment, 1000 Friends of Oregon (www.friends.org) 1993.
77
78
Level of Service By Walking Trip Distance (in Feet)68 Walking Environment LOS A LOS B
Climate Controlled Outdoor/Covered Outdoor/Uncovered Through Surface Lot Inside Parking Facility 1,000 500 400 350 300 2,400 1,000 800 700 600
LOS C
3,800 1,500 1,200 1,050 900
LOS D
5,200 2,000 1,600 1,400 1,200
Prioritizing Improvements and Selecting Preferred Options There are four factors to consider when evaluating barriers and gaps in pedestrian and cycling networks, and when prioritizing improvements: 1. Level of demand. How many people would use a facility if it were improved. In general, this increases around higher density areas, such as business districts and higher-density residential areas, and around attractions, such as schools and parks.69 2. Degree of barrier. This can range from minor difficulties (such as requiring pedestrians to use a longer route than if a proposed improvement is made) to a total barrier to walking and bicycling. The degree of barrier also depends on who is traveling, and under what conditions. People with physical disabilities are more vulnerable to such barriers. 3. Potential benefits. This refers to the benefits that could result from increased walking and cycling on that corridor. For example, improvements that encourage nonmotorized travel to substitute for driving may provide more value to a community than improvements used primarily for recreational cycling and walking. 4. Cost and ease of improvement. This includes the incremental financial costs of the project, and any increase in future maintenance costs. This information can be presented in a matrix, such as the one below. Note that the concept of cost is inverted into affordability so all criteria can be ranked from high (best) to low.
Table A3-6
Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3 Proposal 4
Barrier Reduction
High Low Medium High
Social Benefit
Medium High High Medium
It may be desirable to develop a more quantitative evaluation process. For example, proposals can be ranked from zero (worst) to 5 (best) for each criterion. The criteria can also be given a weight. These are then multiplied to create total points for each project. Rankings can be done by a small group of technical experts, a technical/public committee, or through a public survey.
Table A3-7
68
PT, How Far Should Patrons Have to Walk After They Park? Parking Today (www.parkingtoday.com), May 2000, pp. 34-36. 69 Cambridge Systematics and Bicycle Federation of America, Guidebook on Methods to Estimate NonMotorized Travel, FHWA, Publication No. FHWA-RD-98-166 (available at www.tfhrc.gov), July 1999.
79
Demand
Weight Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3 Proposal 4 4 4 3 5 2
Reduction
3 5 2 3 4
Benefit
2 3 5 4 3
(low cost)
2 4 3 1 1
Points
45 34 39 28
Each criteria value is multiplied times the criteria weight factor. Another approach is to develop a cost value that incorporates various criteria. For example, it may be possible to calculate dollars per additional bicycle commuter, or dollars per pedestrian/cyclist-kilometre using a new facility. This can be calculated by dividing the annualized project cost by the number of projected users. A more sophisticated investment analysis technique uses net present values. This involves estimating all future costs and benefits, depreciating these based on a discount rate, and using a spreadsheet to calculate their net present value. The figure below demonstrates this with the example of a new pathway that has $1,300,000 in construction costs during the first three years, $20,000 annual maintenance costs, 200,000 annual trips the first year that increases by 3% annually, with an estimated benefit of $1.00 per trip. Note that the values decline over time due the discount rate. In this particular example, the net present value of costs is $1.4 million, while the net present value of benefits is $2.4 million. Figure 1 Net Present Value Investment Analysis
Costs and Benefits
Benefits
Costs
Years ==>
However, such condensed values may exclude important factors. For example, two projects may have the same cost per additional bicycle commuter, but one provides far more recreational bicycling. Or, perhaps one provides more environmental, aesthetic, or equity benefits. Such differences should be described in evaluation reports. The city of Portland uses two factors to prioritize pedestrian improvements. The Pedestrian Potential Index measure the potential demand for pedestrian travel, based on the areas PEF (described above), proximity to activity centers (such as schools, housing [especially senior housing] parks, transit, neighborhood shops), and policy factors, such as whether improvements to the pedestrian environment on that street are part of the regional strategic plan. The Deficiency Index measures how critically pedestrian improvements are needed. The highest
80
priority for pedestrian improvements are projects which rank high on both the Potential and Deficiency indices.70 The same method could be used to prioritize cycling projects.
70
Pedestrian Master Plan, Pedestrian Transportation Program, City of Portland (503-823-7004; pedprogram@syseng.ci.portland.or.us), 1998.
81
Resources
Evaluating Nonmotorized Transportation Conditions AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 3rd Edition, AASHTO (www.aashto.org), 1999; available at www.bikefed.org. Cambridge Systematics and Bicycle Federation of America, Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel, FHWA, Pub. No. FHWA-RD-98-166 (available at www.tfhrc.gov), 1999. David E. Clark, Estimating Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Trips from a Travel Demand Forecasting Model, Compendium of Technical Papers, ITE (www.ite.org), 1997, pp. 407-414. Linda Dixon, Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems, Transportation Research Record 1538, 1996, pp. 1-9. Ronald Eash, Destination and Mode Choice Models for Nonmotorized Travel, Transportation Research Record 1674, 1999, pp. 1-8. David L. Harkey, et al, The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept, FHWA, FHWA-RD-98-072 (www.hsrc.unc.edu/oldhsrc/research/pedbike/bci/bcitech.pdf), 1998. Yael M. Levitte, Bicycle Demand Analysis A Toronto Case Study, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www4.nationalacademies.org/trb), 1999. William Moritz, Bicycle Facilities and Use, Washington State Department of Transportation, (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/research/onepages/WA-RD3701.HTM), 1995. PBQD, The Pedestrian Environment, 1000 Friends of Oregon (www.friends.org) 1993. PBQD, Data Collection and Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale Design, TMIP, USDOT (www.bts.gov/tmip), 2000. Christopher Porter, John Suhrbier and William Schwartz, Forecasting Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel, Transportation Research Record 1674, 1999, pp. 94-101. Project for Public Spaces, Effects of Environmental Design on the Amount and Type of Bicycling and Walking, National Bicycling and Walking Study No. 20, FHWA, (www.bikefed.org), 1993. PWA, How Walkable is Your Community? Partnership for a Walkable America (www.nsc.org/walk/wkcheck.htm), 2000. W.L. Schwartz, et al, Guidebook on Methods to Estimate NonMotorized Travel: Overview of Methods. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.org), FHWA-RD-98-165, 1999. Alex Sorton and Thomas Walsh, Bicycle Stress Level as a Tool to Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle Computability, Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, (www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/homepage.nsf), 1995, pp. 17-24. University of North Carolina, A Compendium of Available Bicycle and Pedestrian Trip Generation Data in the United States, FHWA, (available through www.bikefed.org), 1994. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (www.hsrc.unc.edu). Portland Office of Transportation, Portland Pedestrian Design Guide and Pedestrian Master Plan, City of Portland (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Sidewalks_and_Pedestrians.html), 1998. Barry Wellar, Walking Security Index; Final Report, Geography Department, University of Ottawa (Ottawa; 613-562-5725; wellarb@uottawa.ca), 1998.
82
Appendix 4
Bicycle Plans
City of Santa Barbara A comprehensive plan for integrating bicycling infrastructure into the city's street network, including on- and off-road facilities, and ancillary facilities such as bicycle parking, signing and other amenities. www.ci.santa-barbara.ca.us/pworks/transp/bike_plan/bmp_toc.html. City of Portland, Ore. During the 1990's the City of Portland has developed an extensive bicycling infrastructure including on- and off-street routes, bicycle parking, and other facilities. A Master Plan is at: www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/traffic_management/bicycle_program/BikeMasterPlan/Default.htm. Contact: City of Portland, 1120 SW Fifth Ave, Room 730, Portland, OR 97204. (503) 823-7671. City of Philadelphia, Pa The City was awarded more than $3 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program funds to plan and implement a city-wide bicycle network featuring bike lanes, trails, and bicycle parking facilities. www.phila.gov/departments/street/html/the_bicycle_network.html. Contact: City of Philadelphia Streets Department, (215) 686-5514, City of Chicago, Ill. Mayor Daley announced in the early 1990s that Chicago would become a bicycle-friendly city by the year 2000. A simple seven-page plan launched a series of improvements to existing facilities and the striping of several miles of bike lane each year. The plan has spawned more detailed bicycle plans: www.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/Bikes/bicycle.htm. Contact: Bicycle Program, 30 N. LaSalle Street, #400, Chicago, IL 60602. 312-744-8093 City of Tucson, Ariz. With a network of more than 240 miles of bikeway already on the ground, the Tucson Bikeway Improvement Plan identifies more than 50 additional miles of striped bike lanes that will be added to the system by 2001. www.ci.tucson.az.us/transport/planning/overview.html. Contact: City of Tucson, 201 North Stone - 6th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85726. (520) 791-4372 New York City, NY This award-winning plan identifies more than 900 miles of on- and off-street facilities and recommends a series of policies and programs that would promote bicycle use, encourage integration with transit, and link to the City's greenway system. www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dcp/html/bndprods.html#b Wisconsin Department of Transportation Adopted in December, 1998, the Wisconsin Bicycle Transportation Plan 2020 provides a blueprint for more and safer bicycle trips with recommendations and roles for a variety of government agencies and groups. www.dot.state.wi.us/dtim/bop/finalbike.html. Contact: Tom Huber, Wisconsin DOT, P.O.Box 7913, Madison, WI 53707. 608-267-7757 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation One of the first ISTEA-generated statewide bicycle plans. The PennDOT plan included extensive public outreach and an intensive "in-reach" program for PennDOT staff and agencies. The plan incorporates an extensive design manual. Contact: PennDOT, 717-783-8444
83
Pedestrian plans
City of West Palm Beach, Fla. The Transportation Element of the city's 1998 Comprehensive Plan establishes a new traffic hierarchy in which traffic calming is a key strategy in promoting walking and pedestrian safety. Contact: Tim Stillings, Planning Department, P.O. Box 3366, West Palm Beach, FL 33402. (561) 659-8031. City of Portland, Ore. The City has adopted a two-part plan: Part One outlines the policies and plans for improving conditions for walking and Part Two is a detailed design manual for pedestrian facilities. www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Sidewalks_and_Pedestrians.html. Contact: Pedestrian Coordinator, City of Portland, 1120 SW Fifth Ave, Portland, OR 97204. City of Madison, Wis. Adopted in September 1997, Madison's visionary plan for walking incorporates planning, design, maintenance, and long-term goals and objectives. Madison was one of the first communities to adopt a separate plan for walking. www.ci.madison.wi.us/reports/execsum2.pdf. Contact: Arthur Ross, City of Madison, P.O. Box 2986, Madison, WI 53701. 608-266-6225. City of Tucson, Ariz. Closely matching the City's bicycling plan, Tucson has adopted an ambitious plan to improve conditions for walking that is clearly identifiable in the City's annual workplan. Contact: Tom Fisher, City of Tucson, 201 North Stone, Tucson, AZ 85726. 520-791-4372 Arlington County, Va. Arlington County is one of the nation's densest urban areas and has developed a pedestrian plan that builds on the accessibility of two major transit corridors in the County. An extensive sidewalk building program is complemented by a neighborhood traffic calming program, all directed by citizen task forces. www.co.arlington.va.us/dpw/planning/ped/ped.htm. Contact: Arlington County DPW, 2100 Clarendon Blvd - Suite 717, Arlington, VA 22201 North Central Texas Council of Governments Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, developed in December 1995 provides guidance on planning and designing facilities which improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility. www.nctcog.dst.tx.us/envir/bikeped/plandesign/execsumm.html. Contact: Mike Sims, NCTCOG, P.O. 5888, Arlington, TX 76005. 817-695-9226 Washington State Department of Transportation Washington State DOT adopted a Pedestrian Policy Plan in 1993 that focused on local and regional planning for pedestrians, necessary pedestrian facility types and locations, and who should pay for them. www.wsdot.wa.gov/hlrd/sub-defaults/pedestrian-default.htm Contact: Julie Mercer Matlick, WSDOT, P.O. Box 47393, Olympia, WA 98504. (360) 705-7505 Oregon Department of Transportation A comprehensive pedestrian (and bicycle) planning and design document. www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk. Contact: Michael Ronkin, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager, ODOT, Room 210-Transportation Building, Salem, OR 97310. (503) 986-3555.
84
85
National Bicycle and Walking Study (24 volumes), FHWA, (Washington DC; www.bikefed.org), 1991-95. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Accommodation course, (NHI Course NO. 38061, (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk). The course workbook is Publication No. FHWA-HI-96-028. NYBC, Improving Bicycling and Pedestrian Safety, New York Bicycling Coalition (www.nybc.net/programs/NYBC_manual.shtml), 2002. Pedestrian/Bicyclist Resource Kit, FHWA (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk). Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Improving Conditions for Bicycling and Walking; A Best Practices Report, U.S. Federal highway Administration (www.fhwa.doc.gov) and Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (www.railtrails.org), 1999. Rodney Tolley, The Greening of Urban Transport, John Wiley (New York), 1997. University of North Carolina, A Compendium of Available Bicycle and Pedestrian Trip Generation Data in the United States, Supplement to the National Bicycling and Walking Study, FHWA, USDOT (available through www.bikefed.org), 1994.
86
Useful Organizations
America WALKs (www.webwalking.com/amwalks) is a coalition of walking advocacy groups. American Planning Association (www.planning.org) is a professional society for planners that sponsors a Growing Smart initiative and provides many extensive resources.
87
American Trails (www.outdoorlink.com/amtrails) fosters communication among trail users. Association for Commuter Transportation (Washington DC; 202-393-3497; http://tmi.cob.fsu.edu/act/act.htm) is a non-profit organization supporting TDM programs. Bicycle Information Center (877-925-5245; www.bicyclinginfo.org) is a comprehensive clearinghouse of bicycle planning and safety information supported by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Bicycle Federation of America (Washington DC; 202.463.6625; www.bikefed.org) provides extensive resources for bicycle and pedestrian planning. Canadian Cycling Association (Gloucester, Ontario; www.canadian-cycling.com) manages the Can-Bike cycling education program. Carfree.com (www.carfree.com) explores carfree cities past, present, and future, and provides practical solutions to the problems of urban automobile use. Center for Livable Communities (www.lgc.org/clc) helps local governments and community leaders be proactive in their land use and transportation planning. Children on the Move site on children and transport: www.ecoplan.org/children. The Community Bicycle Network (CBN) Factsheets, newsletter, curriculum guides, and action manuals, Detour Publications (www.web.net/~detour/cbn). Community Transportation Association of America (www.ctaa.org) provides resources for improving mobility for disadvantaged populations. Commuter Choice Program (www.epa.gov/oms/traq) provides information, materials and incentives for developing employee commute trip reduction programs. Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org) supports human scale urban communities. David Engwicht Communications (www.lesstraffic.com.) supports street reclaiming. The U.S. Federal Highway Administrations Pedestrian Program (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk) provides pedestrian safety information and resources. Green Lane Program, Environment Canada (www.ec.gc.ca/emission/5-1e.html) promotes TDM and other strategies for reducing transportation environmental impacts. Go For Green, The Active Living & Environment Program (www.goforgree.ca) provides resources to promote nonmotorized transportation. ICBC Road Sense (www.icbc.com) provides a variety of pedestrian and bicycle safety information including Safe Cycle Program material. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (www.iclei.org) provides planning resources to help communities become healthier and more environmentally responsible. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (Washington DC; www.ite.org) has extensive technical resources on pedestrian and bicycle planning, traffic calming and TDM. League of American Bicyclists (www.bikeleague.org/ec2/education.htm) provides a variety of bicycle education and encouragement resources. The Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org/clc/pubinfo) provides a variety of useful resources, including pedestrian and bicycle planning publications. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.dot.gov) provides pedestrian and bicycle safety resources.
88
National Transportation Week Pedestrian Website (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/ntw/bikeped.htm) provides information and links to pedestrian planning websites. Northwestern University Traffic Institute (Evanston, Illinois; 800-323-4011; www.nwu.edu/traffic) offers professional development workshops on bicycle planning and facility design, and other related subjects. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk) is an example of nonmotorized planning at its best. Perils for Pedestrians (www.pedestrian.org) is a cable television series promoting awareness of pedestrian safety. Their website includes advocacy tips and links to other walking organizations. Partnership for a Walkable America (http://nsc.org/walk/wkabout.htm) promotes the benefits of walking and supports efforts to make communities more pedestrian friendly. The Pedestrian Association (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/walkhf) has been campaigning since 1929 to make walking safer, more convenient, and easier. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (1-877-WALKBIKE; www.bicyclinginfo.org) provides a variety of technical information on nonmotorized transport planning and programs. Pedestrian Information Center (877-925-5245; www.walkinginfo.org) is a pedestrian planning and safety information clearinghouse supported by the Federal Highway Administration. Pednet (www.ottawalk.org/pednet) is an Internet list with information on pedestrian issues. Pednets International Pedestrian Lexicon (glossary) http://user.itl.net/~wordcraf/lexicon.html The City of Portland (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Traffic_Management/trafficcalming) provides excellent information and materials on traffic calming and pedestrian planning. Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org) is a non-profit organization that offers resources and technical support to help create special places that build community life. The Rails-To-Trails Conservancy (www.railtrails.org) resources for public trail development. The Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) includes planners, govt. officials, lenders, community developers, architects, environmentalists and activists. Sustainable Communities Network (www.sustainable.org) provides tools for community sustainability planning. Transportation Association of Canada (Ottawa; www.tac-atc.ca) provides a variety of resources related to transportation planning and TDM. Transportation for Livable Communities (www.tlcnetwork.org) is a resource centre for people working to create more livable communities by improving transportation. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.gov), provides extensive pedestrian and bicycle planning resources. UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadsafety/rs/index.htm) publishes Road Safety Education in Schools Good Practice Guidelines that describe how to create a safer pedestrian environment. UK Health Education Authority (www.hea.org.uk) has excellent material to promote transport exercise and better integration of nonmotorized transport in public health programs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) provides resources for planning and evaluating TDM, bicycling and walking programs.
89
Walkable Communities, Inc. (www.walkable.org) works with communities to create more people-oriented environments. Washington Department of Transportation, TDM Resource Center (Seattle; 206-464-6145; www.wsdot.wa.gov) and Northwest Technology Transfer Center (Olympia; www.wsdot.wa.gov/TA/T2/publications.html) offer a variety of resources for TDM planning. Way To Go! School Program (Vancouver; 1-877-325-3636; www.waytogo.icbc.bc.ca) provides resources and support for school traffic reduction programs. World Health Organization Healthy Cities Project (www.who.dk/london99) provides information on international efforts to create healthy cities. The WSDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Websites (www.wsdot.wa.gov) provide extensive reference information for nonmotorized transport planning.
nmtguide.pdf
90